David Rothkopf: "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government - and the Reckoning That Lies Ahead"
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-28/david-rothkopf-power-inc-epic-rivalry-between-big-business-and-government-and-recko
Last summer, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney made news when he said, “corporations are people.” A former U.S. Undersecretary of Commerce says some giant companies are now borderless super-citizens loyal to no country. Companies like Walmart and Exxon now have a financial and political reach that rivals most countries. David Rothkopf says our government policies don't deal with this reality. And besides the battle between big business and big government, there's competition between competing forms of capitalism. A look at the new global order of states, corporate super-citizens, and the declining U.S. brand of capitalism.
Guests
David Rothkopf
CEO and editor-at-large of Foreign Policy, author of "Superclass" and "Running the World"; president and CEO of the international advisory firm Garten Rothkopf; visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; and former U.S. Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade Policy.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
We already can say that our government is but a tool of corporate governance.
This discussion is moot.
The matter is settled.
It doesn't seem to me that there's a conflict between government and business, more like collusion. Big business thrives off of big government and big government is perpetuated by big business. Some industries don't like the government involvement while others request and demand it. Licensing regimes are designed to keep out market competition. Regulations are made complicated and convoluted by business lobbyists in order to allow only those with ample capital and legal resources the ability to navigate them.
Do I bale on the government called the United States of America, in favor or some international Corporation. Not me,not in this lifetime.It took a 1000 years from the Magna Carta till today,and now they ask us to throw it all away because of the "Job Creator`s" boogey man? NUTTY !
Put me in a life boat with the choice of one to save.A corporation or my country. DUH ??
Thomas More: "I have no doubt...that wherever men have private property and money is the measure of everything, there it is hardly possible for the commonwealth to be justly governed or to flourish in prosperity".
I can't listen at this time; I hope that someone points out early that corporations---and for that matter, large accumulations of wealth by actual persons---are not to be found in the state of Nature. Rather, they are creations of society through the instrument of the State; they are a form of social technology, and it is characteristic of any technology that it will not work well everywhere and at all times---it has a domain of usefulness.
And, as an human creation, any technology not serving us well should be altered or ended.
Democracy is essentially one person, one vote. Capitalism is essentially one share one vote. A CEO with a million shares has orders of magnitude more influence in how the world works than his working poor employees do. I have always thought this was actually ANTITHICAL to democracy. Call me a socialist if you want, but I think a more cooperatively owned means of producion, wether through workers' collecives or state owned enterprises is the purer expression of the ideals of democracy. Whoever has the gold SHOULDN'T make all the rules.
As the trend continues will mega world-wide corporations ultimately have the power to control war? If war is bad for business, will these corporate bodies ever have the power in states to control both politics and social attitude to prevent war and cause stability?
I think this is a great conversation but it is missing a piece. There are governments, which look after geographic and political areas/interests. There are corporations and they look after trade/economic interests. But there is a third entity, the church or faith community, that is tasked with the care of the community--large and small. Corporations and governments and churches are all susceptible to power plays and unethical conduct. However, only one has a supernumerary that has ultimate responsibility/control--God. If the local faith community was taking care of the issues they see in their community [regardless of the faith of the rest of the community], the government and the corporation could focus on their arenas of responsibility.
The guest heavily implied that the government's loan guarantees to Solyndra were made because of campaign contributions, but this is a story that most of the media got wrong. Neither George Kaiser, an Obama fundraiser, nor his family, had any investments in Solyndra.
According to The Washington Post, Kaiser made donations to his charitable family foundation. The foundation's investment arm invested in Solyndra. Experts on nonprofit organizations stated that, once Kaiser's money had been donated to the foundation, the money was no longer his, and neither he nor his family could profit from the investment.
Kaiser got tax deductions from donating to a charitable organization, but neither he nor his family could have ever profiited from the investment in Solyndra, even if Solyndra had been profitable.
We are living in a global civilization that is exceedingly sensitive to price changes in the carbon fossil fuel that it is based on. Charging a high fee on carbon extraction and giving all the proceeds to the people would mean a more prolonged period of transition to a resource-unavailability environment. (Higher prices for fossil fuels will give industries incentive to develop alternatives to fossil fuels.)
One cost to society that results from our practice of taking gas, oil and coal from the ground is the pollution load in the atmosphere and the possible destabilizing effects on the climate. Another is that society becomes sensitive to these price shocks related to the resource availability and other factors. Both of these costs or risks to society can be moderated and compensated through application of fees charged to those who take the carbon-laden fuels from the ground. The proceeds of the fees shared equally has a transformative effect on the economy, causing a general dampening of economic contractions.
Fees applied as an efficient and fair way to manage rates of taking of renewable resources can assure that human society does not over-exploit and destroy the biological wealth of the planet.
South Sea Bubble
Growth of a bubble, followed by collapse, happens when people learn to exploit new opportunities but lack some brake that would prevent OVER-exploitation of those opportunities.
When people's confidence in financial instruments and systems (and rising real-estate prices) causes a real-estate bubble, and that bubble bursts when confidence dries up, the cycle resembles the trajectory of the arc of civilization, as societies learn to exploit soil or South Sea products or oil, then the soil erodes, supplies dry up and the system collapses.
How to make the big problems much smaller: a sustainable and just civilization
This statement I borrowed from Wikipedia: "The Federal Reserve dramatically lowered interest rates in the wake of the Dot-com bubble which spurred easy credit for banks to make loans. By 2006 the rates had moved up to 5.25% which lowered the demand and increased the monthly payments for adjustable rate mortgages. The resulting foreclosures increased supply, dropping housing prices further.
Mortgages had been bundled together and sold on Wall Street to investors and other countries looking for a higher return than the 1% offered by Federal Reserve. The percentage of risky mortgages was increased while rating companies claimed they were all top-rated. Instead of the limited regions suffering the housing drop, it was felt around the world. The Congressmen who had pushed to create subprime loans[20][21] now blamed Wall Street and their rating companies for misleading these investors.[22][23]"
My thoughts on this bank problem. My housing loan of the 70's started to move to a bank in another state by the early 90's and I couldn't see my monthly payment posted to my checking account for 3 months. Banks used to keep the house loan. I was insulted that my house load was now being held by a bank in Colorado instead of here in Arizona. Keeping local business in the local community is the answer to this past problem that is still with us. Personal banking is important to the local economy. Yes, I agree GREED did pay a big part in this problem with the housing mortgage collapse. Isn't it awful that this involved other countries too! So obviously other countries have bankers who are not favoring their local community. Who are they looking out for if they are trying to make bigger profits???
Big government controlling banks isn't the answer!! Who knows the banking business better ......Congress or the bankers. If the banker doesn't benefit the community he is in, he will not succeed.
Both the demcratic and the republican parties are corrupt at the top, which is a blow to democracy.
Did i hear correctly? Did one of the callers ask what's wrong with excess? I think its sad everytime i hear someone say they started out as a young adult with ideas about fairness and justice but as they got older (and probably richer) they "realized" that the things they had protested against in their youth were now "not so bad." Hopefully, if you do it right, some wisdom does come with age and you may mellow slightly from the more frenzied activity of your youth. But injustice doesn't change - just your perception of it. Dependence on maintaining what you feel is "yours" and fear of losing it increases and suddenly you feel you need those evil entities to help protect all the excesses you feel you have so justly earned.
Corporations will always push the envelope - they dont behave like a person they behave like a mob - faceless and blameless as they surge forward and crush so many under their feet and then cry foul when taken to task. They will always require constant vigilance.
To adamsrw592@hotm..., who wrote:
"As the trend continues will mega world-wide corporations ultimately have the power to control war? If war is bad for business, will these corporate bodies ever have the power in states to control both politics and social attitude to prevent war and cause stability?"
Reply:
Generally, war is deemed bad for business. However, wars have been fought over resources, such as land, oil, and water. I wouldn't count on mega corporations abolishing war.
Rothkopf seems to me a status quo pro business dope.
He actually wrote on his blog (DRShow provided link) that we are living in the best times ever. DRShow insults intelligent people by promoting this guy's book and consulting business.
Robin G (adamsrw592 reply): Herbert Spencer (social Darwinist) made the same error in the 1880s. War is too profitable to abandon entirely. I see many posters like adams... who cling to the BS from their business degrees. It's fantasy, disproven by events, not worth considering... but it sounds good in sales meetings.
I didn’t like that Tom the host interrupted Rothkopf too much, with objections, until Rothkopf asked to be allowed to make his point. Then Tom said he was just playing devil’s advocate, repeating that in later questions. Were Tom‘s questions his own point of view, or did he just want to jump the gun on any possible objections to Rothkopf’s points? He could have used common phrases like…some say, or opponents would ask…etc, to let the guest counter objections, after letting him fully explain his views. The guest’s reasonable views didn’t call for strident objections. Does public radio feel defensive so they are pressured to criticize any anti corporate views lest they be criticized by the right wing?
How do your producers choose callers? I can’t believe there weren’t any better than some of the ones we heard. Many were very long winded, explaining their own personal feelings/thoughts without using enough facts or asking the guest an actual question. Especially the one explaining how he changed from being a liberal long ago, and now can’t understand why we just aren’t grateful for what the corporation has done for all of us. Tom let him and others go on and on, taking time away from the guest’s analysis and responses. The callers had more question time than the guest had answer time! I don’t think it is rude for a host to tell a caller, please get to your question, as we have other callers waiting. I’d like to hear Rothkopf on another program where he has more time/space to talk in more depth.
What makes you think war is bad for business, war is business, rather the business of business is war. Let's not forget that we are now in a state of perpetual war with some amorphous Protean threat. War is a redistribution of wealth from those who pay for war to those who invest in war.
Big brother or corporate power, public or private, cooked or raw, life or death, no pendulum swings forever. The arc gives up a little every time.
In the words of Claude Lévi-Strauss--"There is today a frightful disappearance of living species, be they plants or animals. And it's clear that the density of human beings has become so great, if I can say so, that they have begun to poison themselves. And the world in which I am finishing my existence is no longer a world that I like." http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120066035
I'd come to look at the graph the host cited regarding public spending as a % of GDP.
Disappointed to not find it.
That's right Chad. In the US today, government and business are in collusion, and not in conflict. That’s the problem! Conflict is good because it means that there is a balance between the two. Neither government nor big business should be able to control each other. Government and business are in collusion today because big business, with its big money, is controlling government.
I emphasize that I am not vilifying business, just like David Rothkopf is not vilifying business. Business is vital to all countries. It is an integral part of a modern economy. But it must not be allowed to hold dominate power. David stated multiple times that there must be a balance between government and business. He sited examples of countries where the government is too strong.
I agree with you ellenb. Tom did a poor job of interviewing Rothkopf. Tom made multiple mistakes when he kept cutting off Rothkopf before he could finish his point.
First, it was just plain rude! Cutting him off once could be forgiven, but he kept cutting him off when it was obvious that Rothkopf thought it was important to finish his point.
Second, Tom showed that he was just plain clueless about the overall point that Rothkopf was trying to make with his book and in the interview. Just the title of his book should have clued him in, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government - and the Reckoning That Lies Ahead". The key word is “Power”.
Rothkopf was emphasizing the power side of each topic as the interview progressed. When talking about the Gates Foundation charity work, Rothkopf had not yet talked about the power side of the foundation’s work, when Tom cut him off. It was clearly obvious that Rothkopf had not yet made his point.
Then, Tom asked Rothkopf how efficiently the money was spent. That has nothing to do with the power aspect of the charity’s work. Efficiency is a “so what” issue compared to who is controlling whom.
I've always thought Tom Jelton's prepared reports for NPR were good but wow, what a poor interviewer (and listener). Makes me appreciate how good Diane really is and how difficult it must be to find a substitute when she's unavailable. Others have commented on how Jelton kept interrupting when Rothkamp was trying to make a (good) point about the unaccoutability of private philanthropy—Jelton's obstinate and off the point interjections nearly made me switch off the radio at one point—but I also object to Jelton's weak-kneed "devil's advocate" nonsense. If you need an opposing point of view, include an expert who has one, or invite (well-screened) listeners to express one. It's not your job to take the corporate establishment's side in this conversation, Tom! This was a very good guest and a compelling topic, but WAMU's execution was awful.