best system

[Phi for All]

Elect another TR!

That old Trust Bus'in cowboy.

Oh, now you're just sucking up to Pangloss.

 

I would love to have someone go through the White House with no corporate agenda, owing no one for getting elected, and put a stop to some of these mega-mergers.

[Pangloss]

Well first, how are the mega-mergers bad for the country?

 

Second, why does the existence of mega-corporations imply a weakening of the boundary between church and state? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)

 

(Might be better to start a new thread on this. We haven't had a good free-trade and corporations discussion in a while, have we?)

[Phi for All]

Well first, how are the mega-mergers bad for the country?

I think they squash competition while disguised as a down-sizing method.

 

Second, why does the existence of mega-corporations imply a weakening of the boundary between church and state? (Or am I misunderstanding you?)

What I meant was Church & State-like problem, not type. My bad. Mega-corporations have so much money and such specific interests that they are able to unfairly influence political endeavors.

[budullewraagh]

tr was half a jackass, half a decent guy

[-Demosthenes-]

He took what he wanted, did what ever he wanted. He took the panama canal, his whole roosevlet colarary (spell it right??) on the monroe doctrine was bull.

[Pangloss]

Oh I see.

 

Well I share the concerns about mega-corporations, but as a moderate I feel obligated to temper that with the validity of points like the one I mentioned in another thread about how the WalMartization of America, while scary, has not lead to rampant unemployment or a drop in average income. The only thing holding back the economy at the moment is the spiraling price of energy. (I say "only" as if that were a small thing, but I don't mean to actually imply that.)

 

But of course your question was really more along the lines of morals and social impacts rather than economics. Setting aside for the moment the notion that that's not really the primary concern of most Americans (they're much more interested in where they get their next paycheck than who they have to kiss up to to get it), I agree that this is where most of the concern has to be. Do we want to live in a country that's wildly successful economically but has a culture as thin as Lucius Malfoy's house elf gruel? (Sorry, serious Harry Potter withdrawl going on here.)

 

I think this is something that this country needs to have a debate about. For every original idea (like Harry Potter! Dammit, sorry...) there're a dozen prefabricated, corporate-created, focus-group approved "boy bands" waiting in the wings. And that's NOW -- what's it going to be like later if we don't do something about it?

 

I guess I see this more as a cultural problem rather than a social problem. I don't see it as a matter of welfare and homelessness so much as a matter of hearts and minds. If that makes any sense.

[Phi for All]

It is an economic problem, or will soon lead to one. As more large corporations consolidate through merger, they create unfair advantages that can't be stopped by normal market means. Government regulation are the only way to curb this, but the mega-corporations can afford to throw millions at lobbying, disinformation, propoganda and other tactics to derail legislation. Add media ownership into the mix and the voter voice gets pretty hard to hear.

[Pangloss]

Unfortunately I think your analysis is just a bit too conjectural. There's just no way to know if that's the case at all -- whether large corporations will produce an overall environment of unfair advantages, or whether government regulation is the only way to stop it. So I applaud your interest and concern, and I certainly can't say that you're wrong, but I'm just not sure we can draw that kind of conclusion based on the facts currently in evidence.

 

And I'm not just being equivocal (not to put words in your mouth, but some observers might understandably think so). A big chunk of my reasoning here is that we've got a long history in this country of drawing vast economic conclusions based on scanty evidence, making sweeping changes in how we do things, and then having to pay a price for our mistakes for decades afterwards.

 

Let me be clear: I think the concern you're expressing is incredibly important. I'd be a happy man if everyone in America woke up tomorrow and decided to make this our top priority. And I absolutely agree about the negative influence of money on politics -- IMO there's no question about that.

 

But anti-mergers legislation would clearly have a significant impact on the economy. If a corporation has a tool available to it that will allow it to become more profitable (or to become profitable at all), and that tool is suddenly taken away artificially (through regulation), but it's still available to corporations in other countries, the disparity could cause a loss in our position in the global economy. In other words, a decline that's worse than the one you fear from the mergers themselves.

 

The days of experimenting with our economy as if it were an isolated sandbox are long over, I'm afraid.

[ku]

As more large corporations consolidate through merger, they create unfair advantages that can't be stopped by normal market means. Government regulation are the only way to curb this, but the mega-corporations can afford to throw millions at lobbying, disinformation, propoganda and other tactics to derail legislation. Add media ownership into the mix and the voter voice gets pretty hard to hear.

There's also the problem of government failure. A corporation and a government are very similar in structure.