Confusion and language American Style

by: Daniel Becker
update: corrected some formating and duplication.

What is this the definition of:

The global economy, and capitalism, will be “reset” in several important ways.
The interaction between government and business will change forever. In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.

As it relates to Robert’s post on public confusion regarding the budget, that’s not all they are confused about.
This man thinks the statement is the definition of liberalism:

This is all to say that a bias towards the interests of General Electric is a liberal bias. The company advances and benefits from leftist policies, so to say that a news outlet supports GE’s political interests is to say that it supports leftist policies.

He makes that claim because GE lobbied for the Waxman-Markey climate bill which according to GE exec John Rice: “If this bill is enacted into law it would benefit many GE businesses.”
So, his reasoning is, because GE sees money in liberal policy (clean air, alt energy) it means GE is liberal. Maybe he’s correct as most of the world calls what we have happening here with such a statement “and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner”: Neoliberalism.
Via the New World Dictionary: — n
a modern politico-economic theory favouring free trade, privatization, minimal government intervention in business, reduced public expenditure on social services, etc
However, via –noun
an outgrowth of the U.S. liberal movement, beginning in the late 1960s, that modified somewhat its traditional endorsement of all trade unions and opposition to big business and military buildup.
Gee, we’re so exceptional, we have our own definitions!
Interesting enough “Corporatocracy” seems to model what Mr. Jeffrey Immelt and John Rice statements reflect and have in mind as to social order:

in social theories that focus on conflicts and opposing interests within society, denotes a system of government that serves the interest of, and may be run by, corporations and involves ties between government and business. Where corporations, conglomerates, and/or government entities with private components, control the direction and governance of a country, including carrying out economic planning notwithstanding the ‘free market’ label.[1]

I would suggest that the social structures referred to as “liberal”, “neoliberal”, “conservative” and “neoconservative” and all the rest are all pawns within the world of GE et al. I guess the issue becomes which pawn’s ideology is going to best serve those not served by corporatocracy. Which one will move to control such that corporatocracy move to pawn stature.
And this is the underlying issue regarding Robert’s post. If people don’t know the language, then they can’t make the correct determination. They can not be real with their life or with the interpretation of another’s life. I agree with Robert, such lack of knowledge appears to be intentional on the part of corporatocracy. It is what Mr. Huffman actually has discovered in his post when he states: “NBC’s silence suggests, to some, that its news-gathering operation is, to some extent, subordinated to the interests of its parent company.”