zeggie
You can't kick goals when you're unconscious.
Let's do it together. Saddlemanbags you in? Let's have a discussion.
Last edited:
Society/Culture Ending the centralisation of corporate power increasingly undermining government and culture.
- Thread starter zeggie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
Saddlemanbags
Debutant
- Oct 30, 2017
- 100
- 92
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Alright you start
Saddlemanbags
Debutant
- Oct 30, 2017
- 100
- 92
- AFL Club
- Essendon
This is pathetic lol
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
I don't feel that the centralisation of corporate power is undermining Government and culture.
I believe it's a reaction and response to Government, culture and general societal values.
What do you think?
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #6
I think the political wing is already owned by business interests, particularly those who either employ directly a significant number of workers or those who represent a significant number of workers to the political class. That's not to say corporate interests control political discourse but capital does - it's all about money - either to a business or to the employees.
When that particular lobby group has the ability to influence the voter base it spooks the political class.
The money corrupted the system as soon as the politicians benefited from making legislation and policy that benefited, or at least did not harm, lobby groups.
I think the solution is for legislation allowing a regular person to sue a business entity for corruption and to allow the state to investigate a business for corruption when they employ a former political figure to access their connections, possibly favors, possibly biased treatment prior to leaving office.
Take the onus off the politician to be honest and put the full weight of the corruption onto the business, make the law force the business to pay for the investigation to clear the politician to work for that company.
The higher up in politics you go the more you could influence, so someone representing a state seat probably wouldn't see corruption opportunities above helping out specific local interests but someone serving as premier probably doesn't have any market they can work in post holding their position of influence over all of them.
This is more of an exercise in suggesting that businesses don't wear the flack when a politician is corrupt but if they did then the politicians would be finding it a lot harder to source some illicit gains as companies like BHP will dodge the risk of hiring someone.
When that particular lobby group has the ability to influence the voter base it spooks the political class.
The money corrupted the system as soon as the politicians benefited from making legislation and policy that benefited, or at least did not harm, lobby groups.
I think the solution is for legislation allowing a regular person to sue a business entity for corruption and to allow the state to investigate a business for corruption when they employ a former political figure to access their connections, possibly favors, possibly biased treatment prior to leaving office.
Take the onus off the politician to be honest and put the full weight of the corruption onto the business, make the law force the business to pay for the investigation to clear the politician to work for that company.
The higher up in politics you go the more you could influence, so someone representing a state seat probably wouldn't see corruption opportunities above helping out specific local interests but someone serving as premier probably doesn't have any market they can work in post holding their position of influence over all of them.
This is more of an exercise in suggesting that businesses don't wear the flack when a politician is corrupt but if they did then the politicians would be finding it a lot harder to source some illicit gains as companies like BHP will dodge the risk of hiring someone.
zeggie
You can't kick goals when you're unconscious.
- Thread starter
- #7
You raised the topic but don't seem to be very vocal on it. You're pretty happy to discuss your opposition to a simple WTC.
Here's something interesting someone legit asked me the other day. Why are there so many news articles about shoplifting suddenly, coincidentally when Colesworth are posting billion dollar profits and spending millions on body cams rather than other options. What's your thoughts on that small subset of 'the conversation'?
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
How do you define corruption vs supporting interests, and employing people with gainful knowledge and experience?
It sounds good as a statement.
But this is why it's so hard to control and manage in the real world.
Look at what happened with the AWB. The clear and total corruption to the lay person, but the lack of accountability and provable corruption in politics.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Again, I totally agree.
But outside of platitudes and in the real world, how do we draw a line?
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
If you'd like to discuss your original opinion and post, I'm actively here for it, and have responded as evidence.
If you're only here to make statements and reduce everything into as minimal a statement as possible, I'm not interested.
If you have some other area that you're farming quotes for, that's on you, but if you want an actual discussion where your views are challenged, I'm always here.
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #17
I'm not sure what position you have on it. I suggested that the discussion for what would be enough to pay politicians to compensate for not being able to work in fields they potentially had influence over was to link it to the amount people on welfare would receive, even a multiple of it, so that a by-product of increasing pay to politicians will increase the money to those on welfare.
Seems like a system that would cultivate a culture of working for the people more.
Seems like a system that would cultivate a culture of working for the people more.
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Your position is to connect a political position's income to welfare.
Political income is already a source of anger and resentment. Adding that to that anger and resentment towards Welfare recipients, why would you view it as a positive direction?!?
At what point have you ever supported Welfare income, let alone political income?
If you're never supported it, why are you asking me to find reasons to make you support a position that you've only ever opposed??
Taylor
Community Leader
- Moderator
- #20
I think there is too much room for politicians to benefit personally from the deployment of their power and influence and if paying them "enough" is required to make it so they cannot benefit from their position once they leave then that "enough" should be linked to the amount considered "enough" for people on Welfare.
Yeah if you are going to start a new thread can you actually provide an opening post?
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
?????
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
OK, just for my own clarity...
Your position is that either increasing Welfare, or increasing Political wage... wouldn't have any negative view, especially if they were linked???
- Sep 21, 2009
- 17,626
- 16,022
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Feel free to engage in one of the many posts that have been made in this thread.
Unless your only position is about the status of threads that are started or not started on SRP?
- Status
Similar threads
