8 ms·

Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying",

Then you should start rebuilding the political system which defines DC. Corporations literally ARE the government, nowadays. (It was given the name "lobbying", but is nothing other than corruption that's apparently accepted by the voter/citizen.)

davidw 13y ago
> Corporations literally ARE the government Literally? I didn't know that. It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.
- zipdog 13y ago
  Harmful to a few internet companies, but beneficial to other US companies. The leaks have identified that the NSA conducts industrial espionage to the benefit of US companies. That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    What are these "other, larger US companies"? Apple and Google are two of the largest US companies by market cap.
    - zipdog 13y ago
      Good point. I was thinking in terms of workforce, influence and global reach, but Goog and Apple have that too. (Made edit to original)
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        Evidently, IBM has the second largest workforce amongst US corps.
      - declan 13y ago
        Not in terms of workforce. Google has 47K employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile A large percentage of those are overseas, and the remainder are concentrated in Mountain View (yes, I'm aware of satellite offices in SF, NYC, Boston, etc.) Call it 15K HQ employees, which should be enough to make an impact. Right? Except that their own senator, California's Dianne Feinstein, remains arguably the most vocal NSA surveillance enthusiast on Capitol Hill. She'll get reelected with or without the help of those 15K voters -- in a state with a population of 40 million. (In reality the number is even lower because not all employees are U.S. citizens eligible to vote.) And those 15K concentrated employees are negligible compared to companies like AT&T, which has 243,000 employees which tend to be inside the U.S. and spread more evenly through congressional districts: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile Of course AT&T has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA very different from left coast companies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/ BTW, compare to WalMart's 2.2 million employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile
- pizza234 13y ago
  There are many arguments supporting the fact that some countries [more than others] are close enough to a corporatocracy. "Literally" is certainly a stretch, but at least indirectly, corporations spanning many sectors are very heavily influencing the government - for example finance, energy, food, military. Just to make a very immediate example, bankers who had a central role in the 2000s financial crisis, are now executives or advisors of the government. Process-wise, the HSBC case showed who's in charge between governments and large banks.
mal-2 13y ago
The upside to this is that, by choosing to only support corporations that share one's values, you can still have a positive effect. Voting with your dollar has long been known to be more effective than voting with your ballot.
alexeisadeski3 13y ago
Corporations literally ARE the government? That's why the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD?
- afterburner 13y ago
  Does that even matter when everyone hides their profits in Ireland?
  - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
    1. Only profit earned outside of US borders may be deferred in such a manner. 2. That profit isn't "hidden". It's in plain sight. It's not even a loophole. The money is still taxable - but only once it is repatriated.
    - afterburner 13y ago
      You do realize companies make sure to game it such that they declare no profits in the US, right? And don't even care that much about repatriating it at all? And do so only when there are "tax amnesty holidays" where money can be repatriated "for free" during a short timespan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
      - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
        1. All corporations in all nations game the tax system as much as possible. 2. The US corporations still pay more tax than do corporations in other nations. 3. US corporations with no foreign income tend to pay ~35% after deductions (per "independent" study cited above).
        afterburner 13y ago
        So basically what you're telling me is it's very hard to properly compare the final effective tax rates on corporations in two different countries. The study above doesn't compare to other countries. So you don't actually know if it's really worse in the US.

davidw 13y ago

> Corporations literally ARE the government Literally? I didn't know that. It actually seems like this NSA stuff has been harmful to a number of large American internet companies, so I guess they haven't done a very good job of running things in their own interests.

zipdog 13y ago
Harmful to a few internet companies, but beneficial to other US companies. The leaks have identified that the NSA conducts industrial espionage to the benefit of US companies. That said, I disagree with the grandparent's point that Corporation literally are the government. Instead, the need for large media budgets for re-election campaigns drives the political process, which makes corporations and politicians cosy.
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  What are these "other, larger US companies"? Apple and Google are two of the largest US companies by market cap.
  - zipdog 13y ago
    Good point. I was thinking in terms of workforce, influence and global reach, but Goog and Apple have that too. (Made edit to original)
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      Evidently, IBM has the second largest workforce amongst US corps.
    - declan 13y ago
      Not in terms of workforce. Google has 47K employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=GOOG+Profile A large percentage of those are overseas, and the remainder are concentrated in Mountain View (yes, I'm aware of satellite offices in SF, NYC, Boston, etc.) Call it 15K HQ employees, which should be enough to make an impact. Right? Except that their own senator, California's Dianne Feinstein, remains arguably the most vocal NSA surveillance enthusiast on Capitol Hill. She'll get reelected with or without the help of those 15K voters -- in a state with a population of 40 million. (In reality the number is even lower because not all employees are U.S. citizens eligible to vote.) And those 15K concentrated employees are negligible compared to companies like AT&T, which has 243,000 employees which tend to be inside the U.S. and spread more evenly through congressional districts: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=T+Profile Of course AT&T has long had a cozy relationship with the NSA very different from left coast companies: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57589012-38/ BTW, compare to WalMart's 2.2 million employees: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=WMT+Profile
pizza234 13y ago
There are many arguments supporting the fact that some countries [more than others] are close enough to a corporatocracy. "Literally" is certainly a stretch, but at least indirectly, corporations spanning many sectors are very heavily influencing the government - for example finance, energy, food, military. Just to make a very immediate example, bankers who had a central role in the 2000s financial crisis, are now executives or advisors of the government. Process-wise, the HSBC case showed who's in charge between governments and large banks.

mal-2 13y ago

The upside to this is that, by choosing to only support corporations that share one's values, you can still have a positive effect. Voting with your dollar has long been known to be more effective than voting with your ballot.

alexeisadeski3 13y ago

Corporations literally ARE the government? That's why the US has the highest corporate tax rate in the OECD?

afterburner 13y ago
Does that even matter when everyone hides their profits in Ireland?
- alexeisadeski3 13y ago
  1. Only profit earned outside of US borders may be deferred in such a manner. 2. That profit isn't "hidden". It's in plain sight. It's not even a loophole. The money is still taxable - but only once it is repatriated.
  - afterburner 13y ago
    You do realize companies make sure to game it such that they declare no profits in the US, right? And don't even care that much about repatriating it at all? And do so only when there are "tax amnesty holidays" where money can be repatriated "for free" during a short timespan? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_arrangement
    - alexeisadeski3 13y ago
      1. All corporations in all nations game the tax system as much as possible. 2. The US corporations still pay more tax than do corporations in other nations. 3. US corporations with no foreign income tend to pay ~35% after deductions (per "independent" study cited above).
      - afterburner 13y ago
        So basically what you're telling me is it's very hard to properly compare the final effective tax rates on corporations in two different countries. The study above doesn't compare to other countries. So you don't actually know if it's really worse in the US.