Heartland

i found out that coca-cola company actually has lobbyists. What for? Oh i know the stockline answer. But think about it. What for does a business have lobbyists influencing politicians?

Is this the kind of world we want? Or do you just accept it?

Businesses, in the capitalist model, are supposed to provide a useful service to humanity/community/the world/the universe, and in return collect a pay for their services. Yes?

Businesses are not meant to manipulate government officials and policies, or to manipulate people through advertising, so as to collect most of the money in the world to the hands of a few families.

Why do we accept it? What kind of a world do we want?

What if instead of overpriced garbage that coca-cola produces we would actually have small more local family companies producing quality drinks for reasonable profit? Not to get fat on the expense of anyone else, but to earn a living whilst providing something useful to their community.

i mean what the f**k? What kind of a world do you want to live in?

You think coca-cola makes the world a better place?

If i were the Czar, i would throw anyone trying to bring coca-cola into my nation straight into jail.

Also i recently found out that all big businesses i thought were finnish, are not finnish at all. Nokia is not finnish, just so you know. Everyone thinks it is and acts as if it is, but it's not! A proverbial six-pence to anyone who can guess what nationality the company actually is.

Does someone think that companies like Nokia are providing a service? How many times a year do you change your cellphone? Do you think your life has actually improved since 15 years ago when you had never even dreamed of having one?

If i had time i would now argue that your life has actually deteriorated with your cellphone, but i leave that to your own ability to reason, if you care to think about it.

It's all insane, you know. Everything. All of it.

PS: And any excuses you can come up with so as to justify your so-called "life"-style won't change a thing. You know it's wrong. i know it's wrong. Everybody knows it's wrong.
All you need to do is one thing. Admit that you don't care. Admit it.
Admit it's much more important to you to be able to go to the store, not think about anything, grab a bottle of some crap like coke, and go home and "enjoy" and not think about what you're doing, than it would be for you to actually do something active to make the world better.
You don't care. And you know you don't. And i know you don't.

All you want is to feel good about yourself and pretend you care so as to show off others what a great guy or gal you are. So you chant some idiotic slogans against racism or pro gun control, cause Abe Foxman told you those are good ideas, or you join ADL in the hunt for evil nazis, or you join the communist party.
It's true some of you may be doing something remotely useful, like being vegetarians...too bad you didn't make that choise yourself, but it was marketed to you by the same people, in order to sell you expensive garbage instead of the discount meat. Nothing wrong with being a vegetarian, and it's certanly understandable why you would think you are doing something useful, but i promise you it won't lessen the suffering of one single cow.
The obviously more useful alternative would be to throw out these disgusting meat-producers who mistreat animals and not let them out of the dungeons ever again!
To adapt a lifestyle that actually promotes real change, not this mental masturbation you are used to doing.

In essence, you do anything, and condemn anyone, in order to avoid changing anything about your pathetic lifestyle created and propagated by companies like coca-cola.

i'm disgusted today. Good luck. No apologies to anyone who got insulted.

Political lobbyists with vested commercial interests is actually quite old news. Been going on for a long long time now. Oil, the property market, you name it.

i'm sure it has, i just didn't know about it.

But the point is, why do WE allow it? Who thought it's a good idea? Do you trust that coca-cola lobbyists influencing politicians have the best interest of the human populace at heart? i don't. Who does?

And it's not true we can't do anything about it. Most people are simply clueless to what's going on. If they understood what's going on, they would not like it either. With all the wonderful media and education, why do not most people understand what's going on?

If media is so ineffective, i'd say they are either part of the problem, or criminally ignorant, which would also make them part of the problem. Either way, the free western media has not done the world one bit of good.

Once people would get fed up with this garbage, it would not take many people to get rid of disgusting human garbage like George Bush, Ehud Olmert and the Rothschilds.
Sure, right now they are protected by the police, but police is mostly ordinary people. If the police would wisen up to the real situation, they would not protect those sickos.

It's a small world and it smells funny. And unless whole populations rise as one against the 'order of things' it ain't gonna change. So it ain't gonna change.

Still, look on the bright side, the earth is fckd anyway, 2012 (or there or thereabouts) and it won't matter one jot how corrupt the planet is.

I like Pepsi Max

What a terribly amusing thread.

Well I drink coca~cola!

Planet Dave wrote:It's a small world and it smells funny.

The world smells lovely thanks to the women who live in it!

MadameButterfly wrote:Well I drink coca~cola!

Planet Dave wrote:It's a small world and it smells funny.

The world smells lovely thanks to the women who live in it!

I once went out with a girl who had dreadful BO.
I didn't notice for a week as I had a cold.
Even though her dad owned a pub, it was unbearable.

Back OT
@Dei. We vote for these administrations & by proxy, I guess they allow these lobyists.
What seems a little pointless for me is the need to lobby Coca cola.
I mean it's not like no-one's heard of it is it?
Do people lobby water or sandwiches??

I'd like to teach the world to sing *shrug*

Pista wrote:Do people lobby water or sandwiches??

How else do you think monkey spu - sorry, mayonnaise - has managed to end up in practically everything?

Supermarkets, oil companies, insurance companies, coke etc etc

They're all after money at any cost. I f**king hate advertising, spin etc. I've recently realised that it is actually evil. Pretend to care and be doing the publlic a favour, but they're not really. They use psychological research for making money - research that should be used to understand people and make the world a better place. So we understand each other.

Take a listen to Age of Greed by Killing Joke and that sums it all up.

As for the public - well people choose to ignore, or have families before they realise then have to tow the line and get ripped off left right and centre. There is massive apathy in this country. Some people live in a fantasy world - such as football supporters. Totally deluded and getting ripped off.

mh wrote:

Pista wrote:Do people lobby water or sandwiches??

How else do you think monkey spu - sorry, mayonnaise - has managed to end up in practically everything?

Pista wrote: I once went out with a girl who had dreadful BO.
I didn't notice for a week as I had a cold.
Even though her dad owned a pub, it was unbearable.

TMI IMHO

Ewww...please people all it takes is water and soap really.

Democracy - the best political system that money can buy.

If you really want to see what happens when corporations get their hands on politicians, take a detailed look at the good old USA.

Then there's the military industrial complex.

Corporations now have the same rights as individual citizens, but none of the responsibilities. Psychoanalyse the behaviour of a typical corporation, let alone the megacorps, as if they were human and you'll end up diagnosing them as psychopaths, if not sociopaths.

Here's a fun fact: The Labour Government in the UK has recently given the go ahead to build a whole load of new nuclear power stations in the UK. The main contract went to the French firm EdF. Andrew Brown, the younger brother of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, works for EdF UK, the subsidiary of EdF. He's the head of media relations.

Here's another fun fact: One of Gordon Brown's key advisors on nuclear energy is Ed Balls, whose father-in-law Tony Cooper, is a long standing lobbyist for the nuclear industry.

More Bombs anyone?

Syberberg wrote:
If you really want to see what happens when corporations get their hands on politicians, take a detailed look at the good old USA.

Actually, I think you've misunderstood the nature of the problem somewhat. It's not corporations per se, but any sufficiently motivated special interest group.* In the US, the Congress has delegated (unconstitutionally, I might add) their power to administrative agencies and bureaucracies. These agencies have been given authority over certain areas of law or policy that encompasses legislative, executive and judicial power--they make their own laws, they enforce their own laws, and they judge infractions of those laws; as James Madison Federalist No. 47 (I think, not going to look it up) notes, the accumulation of these three powers in the same hands, whether one, few, or many, can be reckoned "the very definition of tyranny."

What this meant in 20th century America is that the Progressive inclination to expand government power and place it in the hands of "experts" for the greater good leads instead to a situation in which unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people make most law in the United States. Congress oversees budgetary concerns, and the initial acts that establish these agencies, but not much else. This works out well for congressmen, who can take credit when things go well and avoid blame when they don't . This doesn't work out so well for the voter, however--the administrative agencies are subject to influence by congressmen (though not control), the interests that are supposed to be regulated by these agencies are interested in being gratified by the agencies, so they in turn support the re-election of congressmen who can in turn influence the agencies to gratify them. Since agency budgets are tied to congressmen, they administrative agencies have an interest in gratifying congressmen, who in turn want to keep the fat campaign contributions coming in from the various interests regulated by the agencies, and so on and so forth. What is left is a vicious cycle of influence (sometimes called an iron triangle) in which the voice of the voter is largely if not entirely left out.

What this means is that the rise of the administrative state and the move to bureaucratic regulation deforms democracy and severely curtails the rights of the citizen--worse, it tends to mean that law gets made not by an elected legislature that is accountable to the people but by a shifting coalition of interest groups, administrative agencies/bureaucrats, and courts. Government by consent of the governed falls by the wayside.


* One might consider what late 20th century endangered species legislation has done in California--specifically, the case of the farmer who was arrested for accidentally killing 5 rats while plowing his field or the homeowners who were prevented from digging firebreaks on their property (large trenches meant to retard the expansion of a fire) since it might interfere with the habitat of the same rat, and subsequently lost their homes.

sultan2075 wrote:

Syberberg wrote:
If you really want to see what happens when corporations get their hands on politicians, take a detailed look at the good old USA.

Actually, I think you've misunderstood the nature of the problem somewhat. It's not corporations per se, but any sufficiently motivated special interest group.* In the US, the Congress has delegated (unconstitutionally, I might add) their power to administrative agencies and bureaucracies. These agencies have been given authority over certain areas of law or policy that encompasses legislative, executive and judicial power--they make their own laws, they enforce their own laws, and they judge infractions of those laws; as James Madison Federalist No. 47 (I think, not going to look it up) notes, the accumulation of these three powers in the same hands, whether one, few, or many, can be reckoned "the very definition of tyranny."

What this meant in 20th century America is that the Progressive inclination to expand government power and place it in the hands of "experts" for the greater good leads instead to a situation in which unelected bureaucrats who are not accountable to the people make most law in the United States. Congress oversees budgetary concerns, and the initial acts that establish these agencies, but not much else. This works out well for congressmen, who can take credit when things go well and avoid blame when they don't . This doesn't work out so well for the voter, however--the administrative agencies are subject to influence by congressmen (though not control), the interests that are supposed to be regulated by these agencies are interested in being gratified by the agencies, so they in turn support the re-election of congressmen who can in turn influence the agencies to gratify them. Since agency budgets are tied to congressmen, they administrative agencies have an interest in gratifying congressmen, who in turn want to keep the fat campaign contributions coming in from the various interests regulated by the agencies, and so on and so forth. What is left is a vicious cycle of influence (sometimes called an iron triangle) in which the voice of the voter is largely if not entirely left out.

What this means is that the rise of the administrative state and the move to bureaucratic regulation deforms democracy and severely curtails the rights of the citizen--worse, it tends to mean that law gets made not by an elected legislature that is accountable to the people but by a shifting coalition of interest groups, administrative agencies/bureaucrats, and courts. Government by consent of the governed falls by the wayside.

Out of curiosity, aren't some of those NGO members also former (and some current) board members of corporations? Also, don't the NGO's you're talking about operate on a State level rather than a Federal level?

* One might consider what late 20th century endangered species legislation has done in California--specifically, the case of the farmer who was arrested for accidentally killing 5 rats while plowing his field or the homeowners who were prevented from digging firebreaks on their property (large trenches meant to retard the expansion of a fire) since it might interfere with the habitat of the same rat, and subsequently lost their homes.

Rats? Since when have rats been "endangered"? They breed faster than rabbits.

I seriously wouldn't be too shocked that any of this is happening, folks. The only really significant thing is that our political and corporate masters have now become arrogant enough to admit it openly.

i gonna say more tomorrow. for now: free market, free will,evolution and greed. now write sth on your pc/mac using linux/mac oes./windows

Syberberg wrote: Out of curiosity, aren't some of those NGO members also former (and some current) board members of corporations? Also, don't the NGO's you're talking about operate on a State level rather than a Federal level?

There's a certain degree of overlap, sure, but the board of directors down at General Motors are not going to have the same set of interests as the board of Sierra Club, but they're both going to have an interest in cultivating relationships with congressmen that help them advance their own agendas. As for the interest groups I'm talking about, some operate on a state level and some on a national level. Hell, even universities have at least one lobbyist in DC these days, as do most American towns, cities and counties/parishes. It's very easy to blame it all on corporations (and being connected to the punk rock community, we're trained to do that), but the truth of the matter is that it's not capitalism that's the problem, it's the fact that government is no longer responsible to the people because the ones making the laws are no longer responsible to the people (I'm not a student of the EU project, but I get the impression that this is becoming something of an issue there as well, isn't it?). 20th century progressivism was built on the idea that human nature changes and that a scientific elite could rule that would be unaffected by self-interest. It was untrue in Plato's time, it was untrue at the time of the American revolution, and it's untrue now. Human nature doesn't change. The only check on irresponsible government that will ever be effective is a vigilant spirit in the people to jealously guard their liberties... but sadly, I don't think there's much of that left, over here or over there.

Syberberg wrote:
Rats? Since when have rats been "endangered"? They breed faster than rabbits.

It's a subspecies of some sort. I wish I was making it up, but I'm not. There are a couple of good articles on it that I've read, but I can't seem to find them online. There was also a hospital planned in California that had to be moved (if I'm remembering the details correctly) because 24 hours prior to the beginning of construction 8 endangered flies were found nearby. It cost the taxpayers an enormous amount of money.

sultan2075 wrote: There's a certain degree of overlap, sure, but the board of directors down at General Motors are not going to have the same set of interests as the board of Sierra Club, but they're both going to have an interest in cultivating relationships with congressmen that help them advance their own agendas. As for the interest groups I'm talking about, some operate on a state level and some on a national level. Hell, even universities have at least one lobbyist in DC these days, as do most American towns, cities and counties/parishes. It's very easy to blame it all on corporations (and being connected to the punk rock community, we're trained to do that), but the truth of the matter is that it's not capitalism that's the problem, it's the fact that government is no longer responsible to the people because the ones making the laws are no longer responsible to the people (I'm not a student of the EU project, but I get the impression that this is becoming something of an issue there as well, isn't it?). 20th century progressivism was built on the idea that human nature changes and that a scientific elite could rule that would be unaffected by self-interest. It was untrue in Plato's time, it was untrue at the time of the American revolution, and it's untrue now. Human nature doesn't change. The only check on irresponsible government that will ever be effective is a vigilant spirit in the people to jealously guard their liberties... but sadly, I don't think there's much of that left, over here or over there.

Thanks for clearing that one up.

I agree it's not capitalism that's the problem, it's more neo-liberal economics and what capitalism has become. I'm of the same view when it comes to corporations, it's what they have become that's the problem.

We have tighter laws in place over here, but even so, there are still loop holes.

sultan2075 wrote: It's a subspecies of some sort. I wish I was making it up, but I'm not. There are a couple of good articles on it that I've read, but I can't seem to find them online. There was also a hospital planned in California that had to be moved (if I'm remembering the details correctly) because 24 hours prior to the beginning of construction 8 endangered flies were found nearby. It cost the taxpayers an enormous amount of money.

I didn't doubt you, I just found it strange that a rat would be considered endangered.

I have a few issues with some of the habitat management/preservation here in the UK, particularly heathland management which prevents succession from taking place and the preservation of certain species that have become specialised due habitat created by humans after the last ice age and during the Iron Age in particular (but that's another rant entirely).

Syberberg wrote: Thanks for clearing that one up.

I was clear? What a compliment!

Syberberg wrote: I agree it's not capitalism that's the problem, it's more neo-liberal economics and what capitalism has become. I'm of the same view when it comes to corporations, it's what they have become that's the problem.

We have tighter laws in place over here, but even so, there are still loop holes.

While I've seen the term used before, I must confess I don't know what you mean by neo-liberal. Could you explain the term (in particular, I guess, in a European context)? I would appreciate it.

I'd say it does indeed lie in the nature of capitalism. Competition becomes social darwinism. They sell you the system of lobbying as a competition of ideas. The truth is though that the more money you have the higher the chances that your lobbying will be successful. And there are no lobbies for the most urgent issues, there is no lobby for the poor. It all has become worse since the wall fell, cause now even the left wing parties are going for center-right wing views. In the german part of Switzerland there isn't even a proper left (=socialist) party anymore that you could vote for. Most of them committed political suicide around 1989/1990 when the so-called "real socialism" crashed.
I am still looking for answers. Who to vote for, what to decide, and I live in a country with a semi-direct democracy. I get to decide directly over a vast majority of issues, and I get to elect most of the politicians directly. I'd say this is a priviledged situation, but I'm still looking for answers, and the older I get the less I find them. If I can decide over a new tax system for companies, shall I vote "yes" cause it helps companies, so they can create jobs and we all have a benefit? Or shall I vote "no" because we all know that the only people who benefit are the company owners anyway, and they might create jobs here but they might aswell just move to China the next year (see the recent events with Nokia in Bochum, Germany). Who puts up a vote for a new tax system that helps the average man/woman on the street like me? Nobody. If I look over the border towards Germany, where my boyfriend comes from, it looks slightly more adult than here, slightly more serious, but not better at all.
There is no power at all that aims for a more social way, or at least no power that you could take seriously. There isn't even an idea, a pipe dream (my dictionary says this is the English word for "Utopie", but I can hardly believe it) to follow. We know that communism ended in dictatorship, and we know what capitalism (at least in its current neo-liberal form) leads to. I am so pissed off with how things are going politically and economically, that I turn my eye back towards communism again. But I know that it won't work out either, cause any political system will always be abused by the greedy, by those who want the power for their own good, not for the general interest.
What I don't know is what goes on in the minds of the general public, the 60% of people in Switzerland that do not vote at all. I know that a vast majority of the 30% who do vote regularly are right wing idiots who haven't understood the relation between cause and effect yet and greedy rich morons. But what about the 60% who don't vote, because, as they say "Politicians do what they want anyway."? Are they the lucky ones who belong to the minor winners of the system? Who haven't lost their job yet and are happy as long as they have their job, their house, their car, their family? I don't know... Or are they people who have even less energy to try and make a difference, the more hopeless so to speak, who will just silently commit suicide when they loose their job instead of fighting for what they deserve?

If you find the place you're looking for, dear Eva, please let me know. I'll be packing up my sparse belongings and joining you in that sane realm.

sultan2075 wrote: While I've seen the term used before, I must confess I don't know what you mean by neo-liberal. Could you explain the term (in particular, I guess, in a European context)? I would appreciate it.

Syberberg will certainly be able to explain the term better than I do, but in the mean time here's what I have learned (or kept from university): "Neo-liberal" is the kind of capitalism we know at the moment (for the last 15 years or so): Make everything private, the less state power the better. In short, it is the more vicious kind of capitalism. I even think it can be identified with one of the big thinkers of economics. Probably not Adam Smith but one of his "mates".