Republicans support only the 1%.
Republicans support only the 1%.
Republicans support only the 1%.
You’ve heard it as many times as I have, maybe more.
But did you ever think about the stupidity engrained into this assertion?
It’s common knowledge that politicians receive votes from those they support. Generally speaking, it’s safe to say that politicians don’t receive votes from those they don’t support.
See where I’m going with this?
Republicans support only the 1%.
So, if this assertion was true, then Republicans would receive votes from only those they supported, 1% of the population.
News flash.
Except for in certain highly corrupt political systems, in which I do not include the United States, no one can win an election with 1% of the vote.
Republicans support only the 1%?
The next time you hear this assertion, think about the inherent stupidity built into those words.
And beware of those trying to persuade you with stupidity.
“I don’t like quotas, but I like what quotas do,” says Viviane Reding, the European Union’s justice commissioner.
That is the opening statement of a recent article, “Waving A Big Stick,” that appeared in The Economist. The quotas to which the EU’s justice commissioner refers are for placing women on the boards of large European public corporations. According to the article, in 2011 Commissioner Reding asked European public corporations to increase female board representation to 30% by 2015. She said at that time that if in a year there was no significant progress toward that goal, then those firms could expect her “regulatory creativity.”
As of March 2012, The Economist reports that only 24 firms committed to this goal. So, the commissioner has launched a period of public consultation, inviting comment on what should be done to increase female participation in the boardroom. After public input, any selected and targeted action would need to be passed by the Council of Ministers as well as supported by the European Parliament.
This doesn’t sound good for business.
As the article points out, business does not care for quotas because quotas often encourage tokenism, making the appointment of the best people difficult. And everyone knows what happens to companies when the best people are not chosen.
Such “regulatory creativity” could be harmful for the companies forced to operate under it and for the consumer purchasing the goods and services produced by these companies. Such action would also be deleterious for capitalism, or what’s left of capitalism, in Europe.
But given Europe’s leanings toward “capitalism light,” such legislatively imposed action seems within grasp.
It will be interesting to see how this issue resolves.
Globalization is a process that’s been with us for a while. Oh, no it’s not something that became fashionable just in recent history.
And like all things that have been around for a while, we can see how they’ve changed and morphed over time.
This is the subject I address in my latest article at Business Excellence Online. To see what I have to say on the topic, just click right here.
In “Inside Power, Inc.,” an article by David Rothkopf published on ForeignPolicy.com, the author takes great pains to compare the size of various national gross domestic products (GDP) with the annual sales of various multinational companies. The point of his article is to demonstrate that the companies which economically tower over certain countries have more power and influence in national or global politics than do the governments of those countries.
Such an assertion is either true or false or somewhere in between. But in reading Mr. Rothkopf’s article we get no sense of where on the spectrum the answer may lie. Contrasting company sales with national GDP may be a entertaining exercise (Oh, look . . . the annual sales of Procter & Gamble outweigh the GDP of Sudan by $16 billion.), and on the surface at least such a comparison superficially contributes to the meme and anti-capitalist argument that corporations are “evil,” but such a comparison is a weak approach to proving the point of which Mr. Rothkopf seems to be in pursuit. Even Mr. Rothkopf concedes in his own article that “comparing the sizes of companies with those of countries is a fraught business, with imperfect metrics . . .”
Then why do it?
How is it significant that Berkshire Hathaway’s sales are $21 billion more than Bangladesh’s GDP?
What does it mean that Chevron’s sales are $6 billion greater than Algeria’s GDP?
Does the fact that eBay’s sales outweigh Mongolia’s GDP by $400 million make them a mover and shaker in political circles?
Please check the Foreign Policy chart for more sales vs. GDP comparisons, and when you do ask yourself this question.
What does this prove?
Nothing, because in his article Mr. Rothkopf falls short in his argument by not making a direct connection between size and influence. He relies merely on conjecture, innuendo, and the “evil corporation” meme to make his argument for him, which is never actually made.
Such is an intellectually disappointing approach for that writer.
But hey, the graphics in the article were nice.
This morning on US Daily Review, my article “Reshuffling of Capitalism Confirmed” was published.
The article takes a look at another survey which seems to indicate that the capitalist system will definitely be reconfigured, led by those who control the money.
I’d be pleased if you perused that article. Just click here.
There is a meme out there that multinational corporations are taking over the world. That meme may or may not be myth; I’m still working on the research.
But after viewing this edition of the Charlie Rose show, I have my doubts about this. See for yourself.
Staring at about 16:50, in a Rose conversation about doing business in China, David Novak, the CEO of Yum Brands (KFC, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell), spends much time praising the Chinese government, giving them their due (where it may or may not be deserved), and just generally acting in a sycophantic fashion toward the leaders in Beijing. To get the full effect, watch at least 10 minutes forward of 16:50.
Corporations taking over the world? Based on this limited sample due to the deference I saw exhibited, I wouldn’t expect the takeover to take hold in China.
|
|
