6 ms·

The Panama Papers are a good nomination, the "creepy" part being how quickly it all blew over. The story was squashed by the rich and powerful, especially in Ch

The Panama Papers are a good nomination, the "creepy" part being how quickly it all blew over. The story was squashed by the rich and powerful, especially in China where it was wiped off the Chinese internet. Business continued as usual with top politicians and their families worldwide evading the laws of their own nations.

serf 7y ago
I think the Panama Papers have my vote too. an aside, I once recently wrote an email to Noam Chomsky. One of my questions was something like "do you think the relationship betweeen state and corporate entities has changed recently in comparison to the Vietnam era?". The answer I received back was (something like) "Corporations have more power than ever. Read through the Panama Paper leaks and the surrounding news." It was eye-opening just how far reaching that stuff goes, and for as little outrage as it generated. I totally agree with you. I chaulk it up to the publics' 'outrage-fatigue' at the time. Or at least I hope that's why it got so little attention.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  I'm not sure the Panama Papers are a particularly strong example of the thesis. Well into the 1950s, some corporations had the power to get small governments overthrown. If the worst thing a modern corporation can do is construct weird offshore entities to confuse tax collectors, we're doing pretty well.
  - ksdale 7y ago
    I agree, I recently watched The Laundromat on Netflix and while it was entertaining due to sheer star power, the commentary on the Panama Papers sounded like it was written by a high schooler. It breathlessly mentioned how many corporations are headquartered in Delaware and the only reason it gave was tax avoidance, nevermind the fact that Delaware does actually have a state income tax, unlike that corporate tax haven Washington state, and nevermind the fact that Delaware's body of commercial law is world-renowned. The plot points that were meant to evoke the most outrage were things that were already fraud or super sketchy, regardless of the tax shelter stuff. It's like, "Can you believe that someone would enter a contract and then not honor their side of the deal and then fly outside of the U.S.'s jurisdiction?!" And then they make it sound like it's a tax law issue and not a criminal getting on an airplane issue.
  - dnautics 7y ago
    Well these days we have some black paramilitary companies that do some sadistic things even to their own contractors, but I guess "run of the mill" (not explicitly hired violence) companies like fruit companies don't really do that as much and of course IBM, Volkswagen, zeppelin, Merck, etc, Have some cagey histories too.
  - thiagoharry 7y ago
    Perhaps we should wait for future declassified material to discover if corporation lobbies weren't responsible for some recent coups around the world. In latin america big corporations aren't found of land redistribuction and policies against big plantations. If something changed since 1950s to avoid this kind of interference, I'm not aware.
  - BubRoss 7y ago
    The TPP had provisions that would have let tobacco companies sue countries that did anything to hurt their profits. The TPP had all sorts of insane pro corporate agreements that would have given them more power over smaller countries sovereign decisions.
    - grambrose 7y ago
      You have no idea what TPP was and you're completely wrong. Article 29.5: “Party may elect to deny the benefits of [investor-state dispute resolution] with respect to claims challenging a tobacco control measure of the Party.”
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      The idea of companies suing countries isn't some new thing introduced by the TPP. Most countries allow it and it's generally seen as a good thing. The alternative would be that you can't sue the country; that is, that the people in power can make whatever unfair decisions they like and nobody can stop them.
      - BubRoss 7y ago
        Did you stop reading half way through the first sentence? It is about suing countries because they do something that effects the profits of a company. An example is mandating graphic pictures on cigarette packaging.
  - m463 7y ago
    > Well into the 1950s... Why do you think this has stopped? Corporate interests have always steamrolled over small and large entities in their way. examples: oil companies or military contractors and countries (including ours). walmart or telcos/isps and local governments. Hopefully there are enough good eggs in power to counteract this.
    - alexfromapex 7y ago
      I’ve been thinking hard about it all and I realized how to stop it. Just like Google reviews can have a powerful impact on local businesses, we need a truly unbiased online review system for our politicians and corporations that shows which ones cater to lobbyists, etc. That’s why the rich buy and control media outlets, assassinate reporters, jail whistleblowers, etc. The hardest part will be keeping it unbiased and free of fake BS being peddled by various intelligence agencies and other groups.
      - jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago
        I used to think this kind of thing too. It’s the most direct and obvious interpretation of what goes on in the world. But the reality is that such a system wouldn’t make any difference. In fact, that feedback loop already exists. The reason why it wouldn’t and doesn’t work, the reason why such corporations exist in the first place and the reason for almost all of our problems are all the same: people are not up to the task of running a society in which these problems are absent. No matter how many tools you give people, they will never fix anything. If you could figure out a way to make people smarter and have less emotional baggage and not be petty, a lot of big, seemingly unrelated problems would disappear.
- akvadrako 7y ago
  More power than the Dutch East India Company? Also, these days it's rare for a corporation to own your house, police or military. What's the evidence things are moving in one direction long term?
- sevensor 7y ago
  I remember being surprised at how quickly the Panama papers blew over. Earlier this year I went and did some cursory reading on their contents, and it's doubly surprising. The lengths to which people will go are stunning, people who evidently have the ability to earn vast sums honestly, to keep a fraction of their earnings from the taxman.
throwaway5752 7y ago
Are those declassified? I thought they were just leaks.
- CydeWeys 7y ago
  Practically speaking there's not much difference.
sebazzz 7y ago
Don't forget that journalist that was killed. How much more creepier can it get.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

serf 7y ago

I think the Panama Papers have my vote too. an aside, I once recently wrote an email to Noam Chomsky. One of my questions was something like "do you think the relationship betweeen state and corporate entities has changed recently in comparison to the Vietnam era?". The answer I received back was (something like) "Corporations have more power than ever. Read through the Panama Paper leaks and the surrounding news." It was eye-opening just how far reaching that stuff goes, and for as little outrage as it generated. I totally agree with you. I chaulk it up to the publics' 'outrage-fatigue' at the time. Or at least I hope that's why it got so little attention.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
I'm not sure the Panama Papers are a particularly strong example of the thesis. Well into the 1950s, some corporations had the power to get small governments overthrown. If the worst thing a modern corporation can do is construct weird offshore entities to confuse tax collectors, we're doing pretty well.
- ksdale 7y ago
  I agree, I recently watched The Laundromat on Netflix and while it was entertaining due to sheer star power, the commentary on the Panama Papers sounded like it was written by a high schooler. It breathlessly mentioned how many corporations are headquartered in Delaware and the only reason it gave was tax avoidance, nevermind the fact that Delaware does actually have a state income tax, unlike that corporate tax haven Washington state, and nevermind the fact that Delaware's body of commercial law is world-renowned. The plot points that were meant to evoke the most outrage were things that were already fraud or super sketchy, regardless of the tax shelter stuff. It's like, "Can you believe that someone would enter a contract and then not honor their side of the deal and then fly outside of the U.S.'s jurisdiction?!" And then they make it sound like it's a tax law issue and not a criminal getting on an airplane issue.
- dnautics 7y ago
  Well these days we have some black paramilitary companies that do some sadistic things even to their own contractors, but I guess "run of the mill" (not explicitly hired violence) companies like fruit companies don't really do that as much and of course IBM, Volkswagen, zeppelin, Merck, etc, Have some cagey histories too.
- thiagoharry 7y ago
  Perhaps we should wait for future declassified material to discover if corporation lobbies weren't responsible for some recent coups around the world. In latin america big corporations aren't found of land redistribuction and policies against big plantations. If something changed since 1950s to avoid this kind of interference, I'm not aware.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  The TPP had provisions that would have let tobacco companies sue countries that did anything to hurt their profits. The TPP had all sorts of insane pro corporate agreements that would have given them more power over smaller countries sovereign decisions.
  - grambrose 7y ago
    You have no idea what TPP was and you're completely wrong. Article 29.5: “Party may elect to deny the benefits of [investor-state dispute resolution] with respect to claims challenging a tobacco control measure of the Party.”
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    The idea of companies suing countries isn't some new thing introduced by the TPP. Most countries allow it and it's generally seen as a good thing. The alternative would be that you can't sue the country; that is, that the people in power can make whatever unfair decisions they like and nobody can stop them.
    - BubRoss 7y ago
      Did you stop reading half way through the first sentence? It is about suing countries because they do something that effects the profits of a company. An example is mandating graphic pictures on cigarette packaging.
- m463 7y ago
  > Well into the 1950s... Why do you think this has stopped? Corporate interests have always steamrolled over small and large entities in their way. examples: oil companies or military contractors and countries (including ours). walmart or telcos/isps and local governments. Hopefully there are enough good eggs in power to counteract this.
  - alexfromapex 7y ago
    I’ve been thinking hard about it all and I realized how to stop it. Just like Google reviews can have a powerful impact on local businesses, we need a truly unbiased online review system for our politicians and corporations that shows which ones cater to lobbyists, etc. That’s why the rich buy and control media outlets, assassinate reporters, jail whistleblowers, etc. The hardest part will be keeping it unbiased and free of fake BS being peddled by various intelligence agencies and other groups.
    - jdkdnfndnfjd 7y ago
      I used to think this kind of thing too. It’s the most direct and obvious interpretation of what goes on in the world. But the reality is that such a system wouldn’t make any difference. In fact, that feedback loop already exists. The reason why it wouldn’t and doesn’t work, the reason why such corporations exist in the first place and the reason for almost all of our problems are all the same: people are not up to the task of running a society in which these problems are absent. No matter how many tools you give people, they will never fix anything. If you could figure out a way to make people smarter and have less emotional baggage and not be petty, a lot of big, seemingly unrelated problems would disappear.
akvadrako 7y ago
More power than the Dutch East India Company? Also, these days it's rare for a corporation to own your house, police or military. What's the evidence things are moving in one direction long term?
sevensor 7y ago
I remember being surprised at how quickly the Panama papers blew over. Earlier this year I went and did some cursory reading on their contents, and it's doubly surprising. The lengths to which people will go are stunning, people who evidently have the ability to earn vast sums honestly, to keep a fraction of their earnings from the taxman.

throwaway5752 7y ago

Are those declassified? I thought they were just leaks.

CydeWeys 7y ago
Practically speaking there's not much difference.

sebazzz 7y ago

Don't forget that journalist that was killed. How much more creepier can it get.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]