6 ms·

> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy?

> Goldman Sachs partners had something to say about this law Don't you think it's absurd that an investment bank has influence over a country's social policy? For all the cheerleading we do about democracy, we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries, thus diluting the value of a citizen's vote. No one is concerned that there is no wall of separation between business and politics.

tpmx 4y ago
For all the cheerleading we do about democracy Singapore isn't really that democratic though. Somehow it kind of works for them. https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2022 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202... Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.
- nullhack 4y ago
  Yes, I'm always curious who "we" and "our" means in these cases... As a tangent, the USA is a Democratic Republic, and yet all I ever hear is threats to "Our Democracy" I never hear about threats to "Our Republic"
  - SllX 4y ago
    That’s because they’re the same thing in different languages. I learned the same propaganda as you; the distinction taught to us was basically made up.
    - nullhack 4y ago
      Per google search ".. etymology" demos: the people; -cratia: power, rule; Greek. res: entity, concern; publicus: of the people, public; Latin "Rule of the People" and "Concern of the People" sound SIMILAR, sure! Just because a mechanic is concerned for your car, does not mean he owns it... I think it's lazy of you to call this dichotomy "propoganda" without offering any definitions or etymology.
      - SllX 4y ago
        English etymology doesn’t get you there and encourages exactly the kind of distinction without a difference that I’m pointing out. One is Roman. One is Greek. They describe the same concept, but it’s a concept that has been implemented differently both in their time and in ours: self-government. The forms and institutions are distinguishable as “Roman-style” or “Athenian-style”, but the same is true in 2022 of “American-style” and “French-style” republics.
        nullhack 4y ago
        Did Google not give me Greek and Latin etymologies?
        SllX 4y ago
        Sure it did, but with explanations in English most likely from etymonline.com which, I like the website, but is as much a point of view source as any other. A dictionary is not a source of truth, it’s an editorialized compilation of points of view staffed by people who write the words on the page. The definitions you cited also leave plenty of room for interpretation but the part you want to look at are the mechanics of their society and in particular how power was wielded and the maximum extent of a voter’s power, not a dictionary.
  - nextaccountic 4y ago
    That's because most threats to democracy would shift it to being an autocratic, dictatorial republic, rather than say a monarchy
    - anon84873628 4y ago
      Or to put another way, the risk is in the "Republic" aspects like the Senate and Electoral College overwhelming the "Democracy" aspects like proportional representation and popular vote.
      - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
        No, "republic" simply means that governance is a public matter, not the private concern of a sovereign. It has more to do with the government's theory of legitimacy than how it is actually governed. The UK is non-republican because it's governed by Her Majesty's Government, but democratic because the actual power to choose the government belongs to the common people. The US is republican because the government is constituted by We The People. If it became non-democratic, it would likely remain republican because changing a government's theory of legitimacy is harder than changing how the government actually works.
      - 8note 4y ago
        Your thinking of "union" not "republic" You stop having a republic when rulers start picking their replacements. You'd lose the republicanism if say, Joe Biden appointed Hunter Biden to be the next president or if it became tradition that the next Trump always gets voted in as president. Things like democracy and the electoral college tend to protect republicanism, but both can exist without maintaining the republic
      - nullhack 4y ago
        Is there a parallel risk of "Democracy" overwhelming the "Republic" aspects of our Democracy*?
        bediger4000 4y ago
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    Threats to our republic are filed under states rights, a fundamental construct of a republic. This itself is viewed as a threat to our democracy by those who either think it should not be a republic or are ignorant of the fact it was intended to be. For reference, see debates about a non proportional senate and the power of minority population electoral power.
    - Per_Bothner 4y ago
      Many republics (including Singapore) do not have "states", so clearly "states rights" is not "a fundamental construct of a republic". Nobody sane has ever cared about "states' rights" consistently - it's a silly concerpt. It was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology to justify secession. (Fugitive slave laws, which are pretty antithetical to 'states rights," were very much something the antebellum South pushed for.)
      - nullhack 4y ago
        The distinction is "threat to any government" vs "threats to OUR government" Sure, ANY Republic does not rely on States, as evidenced by Singapore. But OURS (if you are also a USA citizen) does.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        you are correct that I should have stated "our republic" not all republics. That said, the idea that "states rights" originated after the civil war is absurd on face vale. Powers and autonomy left to the states are evident in our founding documentation, and obviously present in the lead up to the civil war as well. The idea that a centralized government leaves no powers to the state and local level is a silly concept and counterfactual. It is obvious in the interstate commerce clause and many other parts of the constitution.
        Per_Bothner 4y ago
        That the US started out as a federation of independent states is a given. My point is that "states' rights" as a political-moral philosophy doesn't make much sense, and almost nobody has pushed for states's rights consistently or when it goes against what they otherwise want. One might argue that decisions should be made at the smallest (most local) level that makes sense, but the idea that "state" means "local decision-making" is pretty dubious. Furthermore, "states' rights" as a political rallying cry in the US came after the Civil War and was used to justify segregation.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    Republic is a type of democracy. You’re thinking of direct democracy when everyone is talking about the form of government where most adults can vote.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  The PAP has always been quasi-fascist (if not overtly so.) They hardly even hide it, their iconography is derived from British Union of Fascists.
cercatrova 4y ago
There is always influence. One can never separate it and become a truly, wholly non-influenced person, society, or country. Muslim traders in the 1400s spread their religion throughout Southeast Asia because they wanted to influence their customers, and customers converted because they wanted better deals from those who would deem them of a similar faith. That is the same process here. If a country doesn't like such influence, such as Japan with the Dutch, they can ban it.
- ValentineC 4y ago
  On the flip side of the coin, one of the most vocal opponents to repeal has been the Singapore branch of the Christian American organisation Focus of the Family [1], which counts the current Singapore foreign minister (among other politicians) as one of its patrons [2]. I don't think organisations can avoid foreign influence these days, but it'll be absurd to think that only one side was affected by it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore [2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-raise-families-annual-dinner-collects-460k-for-charity https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-rais...
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Of course, I don't deny that multiple influences can occur simultaneously. That is indeed the nature of politics.
- emptyparadise 4y ago
  >such as Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition
  - cercatrova 4y ago
    Indeed, just because a country wants to close down does not mean they will be successful at doing so. That is also a part of influence, when influence turns into violence.
noduerme 4y ago
>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech). American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China. Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here. Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights. [0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.
- fatcat500 4y ago
  What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care." Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved. In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive." Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.
NoboruWataya 4y ago
Singapore is free to enact draconian laws. Expat workers, and the multinational corporations who employ them, are also free to criticise or, ultimately, to leave the country in response to those draconian laws. This would be very bad for Singapore, given the contribution those workers and corporations make to its economy, so Singapore will weigh its desire for draconian laws against its desire for a strong economy and make its own decision. So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.
colinmhayes 4y ago
Singapore is about as democratic as China for what it’s worth.
- delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
  I have heard and seen some stupid takes on Singapore, but this takes the cake. In the 2020 general elections, the incumbent PAP had its worst showing ever, with ~60% of the votes. There are 5+ other opposition parties that Singaporeans can and do vote for in free and fair elections. In the PRC, there are no meaningful elections whatsoever.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Yes, but Singapore has much stronger rule of law than China, which is why the city state doesn’t fall apart.
- notahacker 4y ago
  That's... a stretch. China has "reeducation" camps for dissidents and a Great Firewall; Singapore has opposition MPs and overzealous use of libel laws against critics. The two are not particularly alike.
HeyZuess 4y ago
Singapore is a giant company, that is how the country is run. Fiscal policy plays a major role in the life of everyone in the country, and that is why the country has made such improvements. Foreign investments are very important to Singapore, and do carry weight on decision making. There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.

tpmx 4y ago

For all the cheerleading we do about democracy Singapore isn't really that democratic though. Somehow it kind of works for them. https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2022 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202... Singapore’s parliamentary political system has been dominated by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) and the family of current prime minister Lee Hsien Loong since 1959. The electoral and legal framework that the PAP has constructed allows for some political pluralism, but it constrains the growth of opposition parties and limits freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.

nullhack 4y ago
Yes, I'm always curious who "we" and "our" means in these cases... As a tangent, the USA is a Democratic Republic, and yet all I ever hear is threats to "Our Democracy" I never hear about threats to "Our Republic"
- SllX 4y ago
  That’s because they’re the same thing in different languages. I learned the same propaganda as you; the distinction taught to us was basically made up.
  - nullhack 4y ago
    Per google search ".. etymology" demos: the people; -cratia: power, rule; Greek. res: entity, concern; publicus: of the people, public; Latin "Rule of the People" and "Concern of the People" sound SIMILAR, sure! Just because a mechanic is concerned for your car, does not mean he owns it... I think it's lazy of you to call this dichotomy "propoganda" without offering any definitions or etymology.
    - SllX 4y ago
      English etymology doesn’t get you there and encourages exactly the kind of distinction without a difference that I’m pointing out. One is Roman. One is Greek. They describe the same concept, but it’s a concept that has been implemented differently both in their time and in ours: self-government. The forms and institutions are distinguishable as “Roman-style” or “Athenian-style”, but the same is true in 2022 of “American-style” and “French-style” republics.
      - nullhack 4y ago
        Did Google not give me Greek and Latin etymologies?
        SllX 4y ago
        Sure it did, but with explanations in English most likely from etymonline.com which, I like the website, but is as much a point of view source as any other. A dictionary is not a source of truth, it’s an editorialized compilation of points of view staffed by people who write the words on the page. The definitions you cited also leave plenty of room for interpretation but the part you want to look at are the mechanics of their society and in particular how power was wielded and the maximum extent of a voter’s power, not a dictionary.
- nextaccountic 4y ago
  That's because most threats to democracy would shift it to being an autocratic, dictatorial republic, rather than say a monarchy
  - anon84873628 4y ago
    Or to put another way, the risk is in the "Republic" aspects like the Senate and Electoral College overwhelming the "Democracy" aspects like proportional representation and popular vote.
    - TheCoelacanth 4y ago
      No, "republic" simply means that governance is a public matter, not the private concern of a sovereign. It has more to do with the government's theory of legitimacy than how it is actually governed. The UK is non-republican because it's governed by Her Majesty's Government, but democratic because the actual power to choose the government belongs to the common people. The US is republican because the government is constituted by We The People. If it became non-democratic, it would likely remain republican because changing a government's theory of legitimacy is harder than changing how the government actually works.
    - 8note 4y ago
      Your thinking of "union" not "republic" You stop having a republic when rulers start picking their replacements. You'd lose the republicanism if say, Joe Biden appointed Hunter Biden to be the next president or if it became tradition that the next Trump always gets voted in as president. Things like democracy and the electoral college tend to protect republicanism, but both can exist without maintaining the republic
    - nullhack 4y ago
      Is there a parallel risk of "Democracy" overwhelming the "Republic" aspects of our Democracy*?
      - bediger4000 4y ago
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  Threats to our republic are filed under states rights, a fundamental construct of a republic. This itself is viewed as a threat to our democracy by those who either think it should not be a republic or are ignorant of the fact it was intended to be. For reference, see debates about a non proportional senate and the power of minority population electoral power.
  - Per_Bothner 4y ago
    Many republics (including Singapore) do not have "states", so clearly "states rights" is not "a fundamental construct of a republic". Nobody sane has ever cared about "states' rights" consistently - it's a silly concerpt. It was invented as part of the Lost Cause mythology to justify secession. (Fugitive slave laws, which are pretty antithetical to 'states rights," were very much something the antebellum South pushed for.)
    - nullhack 4y ago
      The distinction is "threat to any government" vs "threats to OUR government" Sure, ANY Republic does not rely on States, as evidenced by Singapore. But OURS (if you are also a USA citizen) does.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      you are correct that I should have stated "our republic" not all republics. That said, the idea that "states rights" originated after the civil war is absurd on face vale. Powers and autonomy left to the states are evident in our founding documentation, and obviously present in the lead up to the civil war as well. The idea that a centralized government leaves no powers to the state and local level is a silly concept and counterfactual. It is obvious in the interstate commerce clause and many other parts of the constitution.
      - Per_Bothner 4y ago
        That the US started out as a federation of independent states is a given. My point is that "states' rights" as a political-moral philosophy doesn't make much sense, and almost nobody has pushed for states's rights consistently or when it goes against what they otherwise want. One might argue that decisions should be made at the smallest (most local) level that makes sense, but the idea that "state" means "local decision-making" is pretty dubious. Furthermore, "states' rights" as a political rallying cry in the US came after the Civil War and was used to justify segregation.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  Republic is a type of democracy. You’re thinking of direct democracy when everyone is talking about the form of government where most adults can vote.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The PAP has always been quasi-fascist (if not overtly so.) They hardly even hide it, their iconography is derived from British Union of Fascists.

cercatrova 4y ago

There is always influence. One can never separate it and become a truly, wholly non-influenced person, society, or country. Muslim traders in the 1400s spread their religion throughout Southeast Asia because they wanted to influence their customers, and customers converted because they wanted better deals from those who would deem them of a similar faith. That is the same process here. If a country doesn't like such influence, such as Japan with the Dutch, they can ban it.

ValentineC 4y ago
On the flip side of the coin, one of the most vocal opponents to repeal has been the Singapore branch of the Christian American organisation Focus of the Family [1], which counts the current Singapore foreign minister (among other politicians) as one of its patrons [2]. I don't think organisations can avoid foreign influence these days, but it'll be absurd to think that only one side was affected by it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_on_the_Family_Singapore [2] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-raise-families-annual-dinner-collects-460k-for-charity https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/raising-funds-to-rais...
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Of course, I don't deny that multiple influences can occur simultaneously. That is indeed the nature of politics.
emptyparadise 4y ago
>such as Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Expedition
- cercatrova 4y ago
  Indeed, just because a country wants to close down does not mean they will be successful at doing so. That is also a part of influence, when influence turns into violence.

noduerme 4y ago

>> we also don't seem to care that behemoth US companies exert their influence over other countries In the case of United Fruit fomenting military coups all over LatAm, I agree. But in this case we're simply exporting our values through soft power, money and influence. I don't see a problem with it. Some countries outright ban our social media and films - many like Iran or China citing American corporate support for gay rights (which for most conservative dictatorships is a convenient way to redirect popular anger toward an outgroup and to clamp down on free speech). American values as relate to what you can say and who you can love are better[0] than the values of countries which dictate who can sleep with and arrest people in their beds (e.g. Malaysia). I'm glad our corporations uphold our values overseas. What is particularly offensive is when they don't, when they cave in to the whims of totalitarian governments, e.g. Disney and the NBA kowtowing to China. Would it be bad if our corporations were going into free democracies and spreading values that align with dictatorship and the abrogation of freedoms? Yes. That's what Chinese companies are doing here. Good for Goldman, and all other US companies that put pressure on countries they do business with to uphold universal human rights. [0] I don't just mean morally better, although I do believe in universal rights and ethics. I mean that American-style personal liberty has outcompeted other systems in the marketplace of ideas, in economics and development, and is a more fit model for generating broad societal wealth than totalitarianism is. This explains why it's both utilitarian for Goldman to support LGBTQ rights, and for Singapore to agree to those terms from foreign companies.

fatcat500 4y ago
What you're saying is effectively: "But we're right and they're wrong, so I don't care." Everyone thinks they're right about what they believe in, especially moral beliefs. The purpose of political systems is to provide a non-violent, transparent medium by which disagreements can be resolved. In public health, the protocol is to maximize trust in the people you are serving. For example, if a female doctor is turned away by a sick misogynist, the correct reaction is to say, "Ok, let me find you a male doctor." The incorrect reaction is to become offended and attempt to use public health as a political chess piece to "make them more inclusive." Global trade cannot flourish if every business attempts to install the moral values of its stakeholders in whatever country they're doing business in. There has to exist a level of professionalism where business people understand that they are not there to judge or influence other peoples and their governments.

NoboruWataya 4y ago

Singapore is free to enact draconian laws. Expat workers, and the multinational corporations who employ them, are also free to criticise or, ultimately, to leave the country in response to those draconian laws. This would be very bad for Singapore, given the contribution those workers and corporations make to its economy, so Singapore will weigh its desire for draconian laws against its desire for a strong economy and make its own decision. So many people confuse the freedom to do something with the freedom to do something and force the rest of the world to act as if you didn't do it.

colinmhayes 4y ago

Singapore is about as democratic as China for what it’s worth.

delta_p_delta_x 4y ago
I have heard and seen some stupid takes on Singapore, but this takes the cake. In the 2020 general elections, the incumbent PAP had its worst showing ever, with ~60% of the votes. There are 5+ other opposition parties that Singaporeans can and do vote for in free and fair elections. In the PRC, there are no meaningful elections whatsoever.
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
Yes, but Singapore has much stronger rule of law than China, which is why the city state doesn’t fall apart.
notahacker 4y ago
That's... a stretch. China has "reeducation" camps for dissidents and a Great Firewall; Singapore has opposition MPs and overzealous use of libel laws against critics. The two are not particularly alike.

HeyZuess 4y ago

Singapore is a giant company, that is how the country is run. Fiscal policy plays a major role in the life of everyone in the country, and that is why the country has made such improvements. Foreign investments are very important to Singapore, and do carry weight on decision making. There is a trade off in every situation, and I believe that for most Singaporeans they are more focused on getting a HDB and $300K car and living in safe, prosperous environment, thus they allow for this type of interference. Right or wrong, it does work to provide the needs to the people.