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 Dictionary.com: –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.”
In a nutshell, my friend, succinct, en pointe.
Thank you for your service to humankind.
I’d like to quote you at my place.
S
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.
Yes, find to quote me. Thank you.
“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.”
I try to get my head around the contradiction all the time. To what extent does a democracy become impossible when “compete” becomes a global competition between national interests and includes “my company” that is a multi-national company also. If competition is not merely between two manufacturers but is between a sovereign government and a private manufacturer, how does the nation of the private entity remain a player without figuring out some way to also be part of the maufacturer’s business through it’s government? So our government has it’s “industrial partners” or whatever they are called today.
Is this where we are? Or is my concern- that the US will have a hard time being top dog if private industries don’t have the US government logo too – just paranoid and silly?
There is no such thng as an economy or a governement. There is a political economy. The modern business corporation has reached, and I hate to use the term, a tipping point, where in they have become the political economy and individual citizens no longer matter. Just get used to it. It isn’t the end of everything it’s just the end of what we are used to. Don’t worry about everyone else, worry about yourself and yours.
rapier,
I agree the invisible hand is tied.
You still have the ability to exchange labor and intellect for pay, but the environment has evolved to cabals and monopolies.
There is “going off the grid” or going outlaw as in folk living off the “manor”, but that has its price.
“Make the most of yourself, for that is all there is of you”. Ralph Waldo Emerson
Political is just a type of economy, but it is still an economy. In this country, the individual still matters until the constitution changes the vote to humans and other entities. For now it is still humans and a specific set of humans: citizens.
“Don’t worry about everyone else, worry about yourself and yours.” I do not find this is best for promoting the most risk free life. At the same time, if individuals do not matter, then worrying about yours and yourself is futile because you as an individual do not matter.
Still not the issue. The issue is knowing the meaning of the labels one applies and thus doing a better job with worrying about yours and your self. If you matter.