Power: who runs things?

[StarCannon]

Who do you think is in charge of the world and why?

Do you approve of the way the world is being run? Why or why not?

What would you change, if you could. Please explain why.


Go forth and discuss.

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think "the world" is too abstract and interconnected a system of social and political entities to speak meaningfully about a hierarchy of control.

 

[seeker777]

Independent Nation States the feed off of each other. No one entity runs the world. Things are pretty good.

If I could change just one thing, I would make it illegal for any country to impose or rule the nation through any religion. Separation of Church and State would rule supreme.

 

[jcook922]

Independent Nation States the feed off of each other. No one entity runs the world. Things are pretty good.

If I could change just one thing, I would make it illegal for any country to impose or rule the nation through any religion. Separation of Church and State would rule supreme.

Hard to argue with that, I fully agree.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Who do you think is in charge of the world and why?

Do you approve of the way the world is being run? Why or why not?

What would you change, if you could. Please explain why.


Go forth and discuss.

People with money to fund political campaigns are in charge of the world. They do so by donating money from banks and corporations to individual politicians in exchange for votes on certain legislation. In some cases they do so to start wars and get government contracts for war efforts.

No. The world is not run by people who are looking out for the little guy.

I would confiscate all trust funds and nonprofit funds for payment of government debt and make it illegal for companies and individuals to contribute to political campaigns. I would disband all parties and allow only private individuals to run for office with their own funds. I would hold them liable for their promises during campaigns and have their private lives investigated for all manner of illegal activity.

Discuss indeed.

 

[cantata]

Autumnleaf, wouldn't that then just lead to a situation where rich people who could personally afford spiffy election campaigns won elections, and poor people got cheerfully ignored?

 

[quatona]

Who do you think is in charge of the world and why?

I´m afraid I don´t understand the question.

 

[jayem]

Each year, Fortune magazine publishes its Global 500 list. The world's 500 largest public corporations by revenue. Together, they generate $21 trillion in revenue. The total global GDP, if I remember correctly, is on the order of $45 trillion or so. So these 500 firms account directly for about half of the economic activity of the entire planet. And whatever they do surely has a huge ripple effect over all of the other economic engines in the world. Let's say each company has an average of 12 people on its board of directors. 6000 directors in total. Of course, many of the same people sit on each other's boards. So I'm gonna say we have 4000 or so individuals, who have the real policy-making power over the bulk of the world's economic activity. I'm not making the case for a conspiracy, because I don't for a minute believe these 4000 people act jointly or have any kind of unified agenda (other than making the most money for their shareholders.) But if any one group has the most power in the world, it's these 4000.

 

[StarCannon]

Interesting views indeed.

 

[jcook922]

Autumnleaf, wouldn't that then just lead to a situation where rich people who could personally afford spiffy election campaigns won elections, and poor people got cheerfully ignored?

I totally agree with your response there, though some of what Leaf said rings true that the folks with the money make alot of decisions.

 

[Beanieboy]

When was the last time a poor person ran for the presidency?

One of my students did a report on the Illuminati.
When one thinks how George W. Bush, an incompetent leader who would have been canned long, long ago from any other job, from his botching of the war to Katrina, and being just generally a boob, could possibly get elected and re-elected, the Illuminati begins to make sense.

 

[stan1980]

People with money to fund political campaigns are in charge of the world. They do so by donating money from banks and corporations to individual politicians in exchange for votes on certain legislation. In some cases they do so to start wars and get government contracts for war efforts.

No. The world is not run by people who are looking out for the little guy.

I would confiscate all trust funds and nonprofit funds for payment of government debt and make it illegal for companies and individuals to contribute to political campaigns. I would disband all parties and allow only private individuals to run for office with their own funds. I would hold them liable for their promises during campaigns and have their private lives investigated for all manner of illegal activity.

Discuss indeed.

You're on the right road, but a better solution would be to severely limit the amount of funds allowed to be used for campaigns. Also, there would have to be serious restrictions on media output, with tight rules governing what can go out. For example, I don't think people in the media should be allowed to do any commentary whatsoever on what is happening with an election. The only thing that should be allowed to go out is the unedited words of the candidates, with airtime shared equally to respective parties. That would force them to get their message out in a clear and concise way and the public will be left to make up their own minds, not have their minds made up by a news channel/newspaper etc. That would do for a start, but it is time politicians played on a level playing field.

 

[stan1980]

Don't believe a word of this, the credit at the end is given to a conspiracy nut who became the laughing stock of the UK. I can tell this thread is going in the direction of conspiracy theories though, so I thought I'd post this interesting video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LEljS3ib84

 

[stan1980]

If I could change just one thing, I would make it illegal for any country to impose or rule the nation through any religion. Separation of Church and State would rule supreme.

I would agree with that, but I look at the US where there is separation of church and state, and look at the UK where there isn't, and the US still seems to be a far more religiously influenced country. The way I understand it, a politician would find it impossible to get anywhere in the US if s/he was an atheist, where as in the UK it isn't so much an issue for a prospective candidate. I have no idea why this is the case, although it would be interesting to discuss.

 

[cantata]

You're on the right road, but a better solution would be to severely limit the amount of funds allowed to be used for campaigns.

Now that is a good idea.

You could actually allocate a grant to each candidate, so that even poor people can run.

Also, there would have to be serious restrictions on media output, with tight rules governing what can go out. For example, I don't think people in the media should be allowed to do any commentary whatsoever on what is happening with an election. The only thing that should be allowed to go out is the unedited words of the candidates, with airtime shared equally to respective parties. That would force them to get their message out in a clear and concise way and the public will be left to make up their own minds, not have their minds made up by a news channel/newspaper etc. That would do for a start, but it is time politicians played on a level playing field.

My concern about media censorship would be that serious problems might not be uncovered. I'm an avid reader of Private Eye, and am following its coverage of the US election with interest. It goes out of its way to dig up genuine and often troubling dirt about the candidates. I would not like to see it silenced.

Also, you'd never manage to censor the world media; at best, you might manage to shut up the media in your own country. But there would be huge issues with freedom of speech. What counts as "the media"? Anything owned by Rupert Murdoch? What about blogs, student newspapers, pamphlets, flyers..?

I really don't think this is one of your best ideas. I understand that you're annoyed about smear campaigns, and they are indeed really annoying, but I think it's actually pretty important to the democratic process that we hear not only the candidates' presentation of the facts, but also facts uncovered by others, and opinions and interpretation.

 

[StarCannon]

I understand that you're annoyed about smear campaigns, and they are indeed really annoying, but I think it's actually pretty important to the democratic process that we hear not only the candidates' presentation of the facts, but also facts uncovered by others, and opinions and interpretation.

Music to my ears.

 

[stan1980]

My concern about media censorship would be that serious problems might not be uncovered. I'm an avid reader of Private Eye, and am following its coverage of the US election with interest. It goes out of its way to dig up genuine and often troubling dirt about the candidates. I would not like to see it silenced.

Also, you'd never manage to censor the world media; at best, you might manage to shut up the media in your own country. But there would be huge issues with freedom of speech. What counts as "the media"? Anything owned by Rupert Murdoch? What about blogs, student newspapers, pamphlets, flyers..?

I really don't think this is one of your best ideas. I understand that you're annoyed about smear campaigns, and they are indeed really annoying, but I think it's actually pretty important to the democratic process that we hear not only the candidates' presentation of the facts, but also facts uncovered by others, and opinions and interpretation.

How dare you!!!! Haha, No, I have to admit, I think you're right, it would be a scary thought if the media were gagged throughout an election, we don't really want the next Hitler to slip through the net. Didn't really think that one through, did I?

 

[quatona]

oops.

 

[stan1980]

oops.

Oi! Did you read my post and immediately come up with that? harsh!

 

[quatona]

Oi! Did you read my post and immediately come up with that? harsh!

No! I swear it was and a complete coincidence based ona technical error .
(Don´t know what Freud would have to say about it, though. , )