Neocons try to separate power from passion (human passion).

[applegrove]

Ignoring for a moment that they do it by using & reactivating tribalism (passions they can activate and 'control' from the top down) so they get the votes... will this not backfire? Will the corporations not end up having to represent one tribal loyalty over another? Doesn't that make their markets smaller?

The big fear of American elites is that some global government will dominate them and legislate laws the USA has to follow. The corporates are terrified of having to live in a world where NGOs and the like influence UN (or some uber-power policy) with all their good information and passion.. and they have to follow.

They look instead to rebuild the world without a UN. They look for the passion to be taken out of the power. They look for a world where legislatures are separate from corporations. Where Judicial branches cross borders and boundaries in regards to policing.. but that human rights are not applied to an American or a corporate army.

They want to live in a bubble that human beings that get together and vote .. cannot burst. But this will cause rejection if you do not have a two way relationship.

If you empathize you can understand their fear. But why should we all give up our great cost cutting health care systems for them? I don't understand that. Health care is the perfect example of where giving the monopoly to the government makes the system more efficient (cost cautious and encourages jobs) while delivering to everyone. Every Western nation in the world with the exception of the USA has one form of Medicare or another.

So where the markets have a bugaboo (preventive health keeps costs way down) why should we as people not take advantage of that.

They are always talking about the UN and how it needs to be reformed but when the UN does things like ensures money going to a country stays with the people there rather than some international conglomerate.. they go nuts.

Apparently all cost cutting that out of the pockets of people is fine. All cost cutting that comes out of the pockets of corporations is bad.

Deregulation is a thing that has to happen as the world faces new norms. As too world trade (unless we want to be as poor as Argentinians have been). People will be better off the whole world over (Africa too) if we do the global trade. And you need standards. And you should not be able to rob a company blind. But why the hell not just say.. you know about the health care.. that is one industry where it really does work out better if it is a government program so let's do that across the board. And you know the pharmaceuticals? That is one industry where you really have to give out monopolies for their new products so they keep doing the research.

I don't understand what is so scary about keeping with the mix that we have worked out over the last 100 years.

Some regulations for you, some regulations for the people.

And of course corporations will be making new kinds of money (on-line) and finding new markets (on-line) and winning and loosing and getting too big and warped (and getting slapped down) and jobs moving, etc. But why should they be the ones (or actors thereof) to make the rules?

I'm afraid this is going to backfire. And the trust between people and corporations will be eroded by the tribalism that the Bush WH tries to encourage. After all - if the rich go offshore, then the middle class will follow and one corporation will have to decide to be with the off-shores or to be on land in democracies. Or like Bill Gates.. he makes a decision to not back gay marriage because of fear of big churches and the progressive community fires back. (Tribalism.. isn't it purdy?). And the corporations themselves will be diminished for the diminished tribal democracies they are a part of. It is more like the tribalism will force corporations to be political and take sides. There goes 1/2 of your market boys!!!

Classicism never works out for the markets. When the elites get too much power they skew things and mess up the markets. Look at the Middle Ages. Do the corporations want to have the monopoly on information that the Roman Catholic Church had? My god.. it took 1700 years for people to go from living in relatively civil societies one on top of each other to having soap. Couldn't the stinkyness & health problems have been solved earlier? Science wasn't a big issue for the church. Corporations came along and solved the soap issue when the markets finally began to become unregulated and when information went to those who sook it out. But with unfettered corporations being in control of the schools & research.. preventive health will suffer. There is always an 'externality' to any elite.

I don't see how switching to the 20th Century South American model of 'democracy' could be good for corporations. Those elites were afraid all the time too. If people get pissed off enough and activist.. they will just start joining co-ops and buying stuff from sources on-line. Or going with the corporations that represents their politics.

Now how has that saved corporations from being at the whim of human passion?