Bussiness in Politics.

[Zacheria]

Speaking from my perspective as an American I can say that politics in Amercia are heavly influenced by corperations and buisness men as well. If you look at the Bush administration his very own vice president, many of his cabnet members, and himself included are or were at one point avide buisness men. My question is as follows: Does buisness have a place in political affairs or does it skew vision from the well fair of citizens, to doing more finacial profitable things.

[Sheep]

Does buisness have a place in political affairs or does it skew vision from the well fair of citizens, to doing more finacial profitable things.

Both.

[internationalist]

Mr. Bush was avid only at ruining businesses, not running them successfully.

[Aristophanes]

Mr. Bush was avid only at ruining businesses, not running them successfully.

He's never been very strong when it comes to accounting, balancing books, keeping spending in check, or, thinking strategically.

I don't mind businessmen participating in politics once they have divested themselves of all financial ties to the business world, but I certainly do mind when businessmen lobby and donate money to political parties in order to gain some regulatory loophole or competitive advantage.

[The Alcotroll]

Consider the following:

You're elected to a constituency in the North West of England (but you could generalise this example to anywhere). It's a post industrial area; once bristling with cotton mills, steel works, car plants and all sorts of medium and heavy industries that brought jobs and income to the area.
Unfortunately, in the era of globalisation, it's cheaper for companies to do their manufacturing in the developing world, where there are fewer Unions and you don't need to pay workers as much.
As a result, the area's industry has died off, causing much unemployment. Because of this, crime is higher, ill-health is higher and the Local Authority has less income to spend on inprovments to infastruicture and quality of life.

You were elected to power in the Local Authority on a promise to raise Employment and bring investment into the area. Before long you're approached by a large corporation, who wants to build a manufacturing plant for soft drinks cans in your area.
Not only will this bring jobs for the workers in the plant, it'll provide work for local construction firms, suppliers of building materials, plumbers and electricians. The plant will need security guards, cleaners and caterers, hauliers for the raw materials and finished product. The influx of cash at individual level (when the plant workers get paid) will mean more business for shop owners and leisure workers, stimulating the local economy.
However. The company wants to build their plant over four acres of unspoilt green-belt (open space, protected by law). They refuse to re-develop a brown-field site, but insist on having this particular plot of land.

Do you tell them to shove it? Do you risk losing all those jobs that you promised to provide; that massive stimulus to your local economy?

You let them build the plant, and the money rolls in. Unemployment plummets, gross spending is up. Everyone is happy, but for a few Environmentalists (and since they're mostly layabout students with long hair, no-one cares about them).

Then people living downwind from the plant make complaints about the pollution it's causing. Plants are showing black spots on their leaves, more children are showing signs of Asthma.
You approach the company and demand that they take steps to reduce the level of pollution that their plant is producing. The company informs you that there are already stringent measures in place, delivers a bundle of paperwork to back up their claim, then points out that any further action would make them un-competetive in today's dynamic markets, and they would be forced to re-locate the plant.

Not long after, the company approaches you again. They regret to inform you that the plant is not as financially viable as estimates had led them to believe. A combination of market forces et -cetera et-cetera.... Unless the enterprise can be turned around soon, the company will have no option but to 'downsize' and 're-locate'. In other words, they'll lay off a load of workers, or else shut down the place and bugger off to Mexico.
Perhaps if the Local Authority could smooth this process by offering certain 'subsidies' or 'financial incentives', maybe even a few tax-exemptions....?
Of course, you could always tell them to do one, but then you'd lose all those jobs and the income they bring.

It's easy to see how Politicians have their hands tied even before we start throwing bribes around or threatening to reveal the affair they had with that school boy...

I posted this in another thread on a similar subject. Rather than re-gurgitate it, I just C/P it.

I think Politics and Business and inseperable, and inevitably so. Its sad, because it makes a mockery of the cherished ideal of democracy, but there's little anyone can do about it, so its better to forget about it.

[Denny Crane!]

I don't believe it is impossible to seperate them at all. Just very very difficult.

Peter

[Removed_user_012521]

Why shouldn't biusness have a place in polotics? I mean doesn't everyone want companies (i.e the economy) to do good? I fail to see the problem wit passing laws that will help major coorporations, same with small biusnesses. However it seems to me that the democrats often take the liberty of interpretting this (for the less knowladgable one out there) as an attack on the individual, the consumer, and the citizen.

[Ahlerich]

Why shouldn't biusness have a place in polotics? I mean doesn't everyone want companies (i.e the economy) to do good? I fail to see the problem wit passing laws that will help major coorporations, same with small biusnesses. However it seems to me that the democrats often take the liberty of interpretting this (for the less knowladgable one out there) as an attack on the individual, the consumer, and the citizen.

if politicians benefit a lot from companies and they help to fulfil the comapnies interests its not a far way to a country that is run by companies with a puppet president to keep the masses calm and make them think they live in a democracy

[Tom Paine]

I don't believe it is impossible to seperate them at all. Just very very difficult.

Business pays for politics; unluckily. We get what's best for corporation, not what's best for people, because the corporations can pay more in contributions.

[Denny Crane!]

Business pays for politics; unluckily. We get what's best for corporation, not what's best for people, because the corporations can pay more in contributions.

Which is what makes it difficult to stop but not possible. The first step is to stop all politicians earning any kind of second income and the second to divorce business and election campaigns and third stop all business men sitting on advisory comittees.

Admittedly it wouldn't end the involvenment but it would be a tremendous start and a sever of all direct links to the government.

Peter

[Tom Paine]

Which is what makes it difficult to stop but not impossible. The first step is to stop all politicians earning any kind of second income and the second to divorce business and election campaigns and third stop all business men sitting on advisory comittees.

Admittedly it wouldn't end the involvenment but it would be a tremendous start and a sever of all direct links to the government.

On the first, it hs been tried; think about what people give up when they are elected, supposedly all their interests and shares.
On the second, how can we do that and still allow donations to political campaigns or parties?
On the third, that can be done, so we probably should...

[Mímirswell]

On the first, it hs been tried; think about what people give up when tey are elected, supposedly all their interests and shares.
On the second, how can we do that and still allow donations to political campaigns or parties?
On the third, that can be done, so we probably should...

I'd setup a public TV and radio station for campaigns featuring 1 hour each for local, state and national candidates. Also, any positive media the incumbent draws as a direct result of his position (be it president, senator, etc.) should be allotted to the challenger at a ratio (since the incumbent also draws negative attention from his position as well). Finally, I would apply a strict limit on money spent in the campaign, be it candidate specific or issue specific.

Business men can be on advisory committees, they should not be able to draw a direct feduciary gain from such activities though. Business men have direct insight into the laws that concern them just as everyone else does and I would not deny them their due.

[Denny Crane!]

On the first, it hs been tried; think about what people give up when they are elected, supposedly all their interests and shares.
On the second, how can we do that and still allow donations to political campaigns or parties?
On the third, that can be done, so we probably should...

One: They do not give up all interests. That is why we have politicians sitting on the boards of a lot of the biggest countries in Britain.

second: Why are donations neccessary exactly. This is the thing to avoid, business' who donate expect favors in return which is exactly the thing to avoid. We have an annual tax revenue of something like £450 billion I am sure we can set an identical pot away for each party at the campaign stage. Much fairer system.

Third: Agreed.

And while I'm on my soapbox how about an end to shifting political boundaries or even some proportional representation damn it...

Peter

[Ahlerich]

ya that would be a good thing around the world. in germany its a common thing that "big" politicians are sitting in high positions in companies. u might think that its a fulltime ship to take part in running/managin a company.also it should be a full time job to be a high politician not a half time job.
what would be wrong with an simple law that politicians are not supposed to work anywhere else than in their cabinet/for their parties. they get a paycheck from their party/government and it is a good paycheck so why should they be able to work somewhere else at the same time. they can make relationships with companies but they should not profit of them. it makes me angry to think that i pay them pretty well with the taxes i pay and a comapny pays them too. i dont want them to work in the interest of a company i want them to work in the interest of the country/me. haha i wanna call a vote in my country to forbid politicians to get money besides their paycheck as politician. thats how i d like democracy

[Tom Paine]

We do live in a democracy; a corporate capital democracy. One dollar, one vote, maybe.

[Kanaric]

We do live in a democracy; a corporate capital democracy. One dollar, one vote, maybe.

Ya, the same corporations that use slave labor to build all their equipment and have huge human rights violations overseas.

[Tom Paine]

I don't support it, I just know it. The fact it is here is not to be accepted but protested.

[Zacheria]

My biggest problem with buisness in politics is as follows; the whole persona of buisness is gaining the most capital possible. The mentality of the political world should be bettering the lives for as many people as possible. If the business mentality travels into the political relm it would seem to me that politicans would think more about the dollar than the people. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying they dont give a crap about the people who elect them, I just think that their mentality on how things should be done will always focus on the dollar sign.

[Removed_user_012521]

My biggest problem with buisness in politics is as follows; the whole persona of buisness is gaining the most capital possible. The mentality of the political world should be bettering the lives for as many people as possible. If the business mentality travels into the political relm it would seem to me that politicans would think more about the dollar than the people. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying they dont give a crap about the people who elect them, I just think that their mentality on how things should be done will always focus on the dollar sign.

Why? I mean I don't have a problem with helping people out but making it the goal of the country to help starving people in Africa is just silly. That kind of mentallity in a government would completly be in conflict with Cappitalism and the idea of the Individual. Governments need to be geard to allowing, and helping, the advancement of the individual.
Also on the home front a lot of what big companies want is for the country to be in a healthy state, big companines want whats good for them which is whats good for you and the country.

[Zacheria]

Why? I mean I don't have a problem with helping people out but making it the goal of the country to help starving people in Africa is just silly. That kind of mentallity in a government would completly be in conflict with Cappitalism and the idea of the Individual. Governments need to be geard to allowing, and helping, the advancement of the individual.
Also on the home front a lot of what big companies want is for the country to be in a healthy state, big companines want whats good for them which is whats good for you and the country.

All I am trying to say is that the first goal of politics is people, not money. Business focuses on money. Thats that. It isnt a bad thing, money makes the world go round. I just think money shouldnt be an influencing factor in decisions based on people and their lives.