Which is more transparent: Corporate Abuses of Power or Government Abuses of Power

Why and How.

P.S. Be careful this is a tricky question to answer.

 

How is it a tricky question?

 

Try to answer it and you'll find out.

 

IMO, there is collusion among the corporate powers and gov't powers to make those elitist have greater power.

 

Well is the dog wagging its tail or is the tail wagging the dog. Have corporate powers taken over the government or has government taken over the corporate powers? Also which abuse would be easier to see.

 

What power do corporations have to abuse?

 

It has been my opinion that the corporations buy the gov't. I don't think the gov't goes to corps and says, what can I do for you to allow you greater profits at the expense of the consumer. There are some as that is why some get into politics, but usually for some business or type they have an interest in.

 

Well if you can't think of any, this probably isn't the question for you. I don't want to lead you into an answer here, its a thinking mans question.

- - - Updated - - -

Still, even if in collusion, which entity do you think is more transparent, which abuses of power are more easily seen, how and why.

 

I'm pretty sure asking what powers corporations have is thinking man's question as well.

So why not answer it?

 

Because its off topic, make your own thread up if you have a question, don't hijack this one. If you don't think corporations have powers to abuse, then how can you weigh on their transparency?

 

I'll tell you what, even though its off topic I'll answer it anyway in the hopes that you will return the favor and answer mine. I think that corporate powers are so opaque that I also cannot come up with any of them, and therefore any possible abuses. What are your thoughts on your own question and the thread title?

 

I'm not trying to hijack your thread. But your question is based on a false premise.

Corporations don't have power to absue, however government does.
Corporations break laws, government makes laws.

 

So I guess we could agree that corporate powers are so opaque, we can't even discern if they have them. Corporations have wealth, do you not think wealth brings power? Do you think the government would still have power to abuse if it had no money?

 

Yes, corporations have wealth and that gives them influence. But who allows them to buy that influence?

 

Yes, corporations derive influence from wealth. Government derives both power and wealth from force. Ours is broke right now but it still retains the power of force and fraudulent wealth.

 

corporations have wealth, elected officals need influx of wealth for power. sure gov can abuse power but when is it not in corporate interest that they do?

 

Which is more transparent?

Tricky, I suppose, because it varies from moment to moment. There's also the issue of how to differentiate between the two. On balance, and since it's simply a forum question so it's unlikely anyone will die, I'd say corporate abuse of power is more transparent since corporations don't have to pay as much lip service to 'the people' as government does. That tends to make governmental abuse of power more covert.

 

If you think that it is possible to have one and not the other what are all those lobbyists do ?

 

If govt officially just did their jobs and didn't take the bribes, or future promises of financial gain, there wouldn't be a problem. Its greed and nothing more. People who mostly couldn't hack it in the private sector have instead moved into govt to get rich, which to any American should seem very VERY wrong. Remove any capacity for a private person or entity to influence a govt official and there would be no wagging of dogs tails=)

 

With Obama and his proven pack of liars running the government, it is no doubt the government is far more abusive.

 

Not which is more abusive, which abuse is easier to see.

 

I would think that proves the opposite. One entity not needing to be consistent (or even give lip service) would tend to make it harder to see (less transparent) wouldn't it?

 

I see what you mean but I still think that because corporations aren't particularly beholden to 'we, the people' they're not going to care that much if they're spotted being corrupt so will brazen go right ahead and be corrupt.

Six and half a dozen since the power mongers in both politics and corporations have a propensity for sociopathic and psychopathic behaviours so are unlikely to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) anyway!

 

Publicly traded Corps are the most transparent
Private Corps are the least
Gov't somewhere in the middle.

With public corps, there are thousands and thousands of very highly paid analyst digging and demanding inforamtion that they can disect and identify risks of investment. Abusive practices is a very important area of interest in that analysis.

With Gov't, we have a media that is supposed to do that job. But they seem more interested in finding planes, whether a dude can marry a dude, and what NBA owner ran his mouth.

Private corps have no transparency and abusive practices are not known until someone is in jail.

 

Well said. I have yet to see the US government abuse their power on behalf of the little guy.