A very interesting thread currently active deals with the implications of a socialist country selling oil cheaper than the ultra-efficient capitalist countries can manage to do.

Here in Canada, we have had two governments, the B.C. Liberals and the national Conservatives, beating the same drum.

It stands to reason, they have explained to us, that free enterprise offers the best of all possible worlds to everyone: business and consumer.

Here in B.C. we have lots of electricity produced by hydro power. We have enjoyed the lowest rates for electricity in North America for many years. And B.C. Hydro's unionized work force was well paid, ploughing back money into the B.C. economy while they and their families enjoyed comfortable lives and safe working conditions.

That is, until our Businessman Premier decided to make it better.

Since it ain't broke, we'll fix it, he said.

So now we learn that his party had arranged a deal with an aluminum smelter for very, very cheap power indeed.

A watchdog blew the whistle when it was learned that our premier had very recently bought shares in that very same company!

A hearing into the propriety of the premier's personal stake in the cheap deal was investigated. But he is innocent as the day is long, it has determined. How was he to know how his broker would handle his portfolio?

Clearly it would be unreasonable for the taxpayers to hold the premier to a higher level of accountability than that to which, say, a dentist would be held. It would be wrong, very wrong, if we were to expect him to instruct his broker to report to him any purchases that might involve a conflict of interest.

Oh, and this month, we learn our hydro electric charges have been raised.

The Bushes, too, have had major oil interests in the middle east since Daddy 'Warbucks' Bush's day. Creating fear through the 9-11 hysteria and blaming one nation for terrorist acts to justify an invasion of that nation was the outcome, true, but it would be wrong, very wrong, of us to suspect a motive involving personal gain for him and his cronies.

So we have premiers and presidents who get elected by trotting out some shibboleth about the evils of responsible government, about democratically elected socialist governments, for example, meantime making the big bucks for their military hardware manufacturer buddies, who in turn pump funds into their campaign coffers, quid pro quo;

or we get elected officials using their office to make public policy decisions that enrich themselves and their supporters.

And when really big business is behind a figurehead leader, the truism that competition among suppliers yields the lowest costs for the average citizen is exposed as an illusion.

Graft and expensive warmongering (paid for by the taxpayer) laps up any average citizen's potential advantage.

Is it possible to separate big business from government in a capitalist democracy?

If so, how?

Interesting topic, bab. One thing is clear: it is impossible to separate government from big business in a pure socialist economy and communist government where the state controls the means of production.

I think it "stands to reason" that the people explaining things often stand to gain some benefit to themselves if we accept their explanations as gospel.

The name B.C Hydro suggests that this electricity is produced by hydroelectric generation. Dammed rivers and waterfalls. If they do not belong to the public; the damned things surely can't be owned by any private business.

Ah hah! Aluminum smelters do use a lot of electricity - so I can predict the justification that will be used. Creating hundreds of jobs, etc. We do the same sort of thing in the U.S. We give tax breaks to big supermarkets, WalMarts, etc. if they will agree to open their plants in our state, etc. The fact that they will cause the smaller businesses to go belly-up in the vicinity is never mentioned. Nor is the inevitable consequence, once the competition has been driven out, big-box store can charge whatever it wants.

Do premiers and presidents get elected by courting the favor of those super-efficient captains of industry, who show their gratitude by helping to provide the obscene funding needed to keep the so-called "public servants" in office?

"Is it possible to separate big business from government in a capitalist democracy ?"

Coldfuse says, "---it is impossible --- in a pure socialist economy and communist government where the state controls the means of production. He's probably right, but is that also true of a capitalist democracy ? I believe that regardless of the form of government, socialist or capitalist, checks and balances must be maintained . Unrestrained capitalism is just as bad or worse than communism if the natural animal instincts of god-fearing humans are not subject to the enlightened self-preservative instincts of the tribe. We will always have need for whistle-blowers, skeptics, and - dare one say - those who do not have blind faith in anything. It's a jungle out there!

Be interesting to know whether anyone can point to a single instance of 'big business' influencing government in Britain and acting in its own interests in the process. Can't think of any clear one, myself.

Mr Blair's government, historically and supposedly 'of the left' (something of a joke: it lives in the real world, not some socialist dream) has been under fire from the Left because it insists on putting business that was once exclusively the province of the State into the hands of private contractors. That policy ought to make good sense.The argument against it tends to be from those, e.g state employees and their unions, whose inefficiency, wasteful misuse of public funds, monopoly of the business and whose enthusiasm for sinecures has cost the taxpayer dearly enough. Private enterprise might not deliver but at least, if it doesn't, the remedy is there viz. to cancel or not renew the contracts of the firms concerned.

Cold says:

quote:

...it is impossible to separate government from big business in a pure socialist economy and communist government where the state controls the means of production

I had said:

quote:

Is it possible to separate big business from government in a capitalist democracy?

The reason I said 'in a capitalist democracy' and not 'in a democracy' is that in a socialist democracy the state is de facto the sole shareholder in all the country's enterprises. So there is no conflict between the state and 'big business'.

It is the overall political philosophy of capitalist systems to advance capitalist goals. Capitalist goals are all about maximizing profit for the owners of the means of production -- 'capital'. The benefit of such a system is said to be that goodies in the form of wages and cheap products 'trickle down' to the working classes.

It is the overall political philosophy of socialist systems to advance social goals.

Of course in a dictatorship, capitalist or socialist, the public interest is not served, but only the interest of the dictator/emperor/king or other autocrat and his/her cronies and henchmen.

quote:

Be interesting to know whether anyone can point to a single instance of 'big business' influencing government in Britain and acting in its own interests in the process. Can't think of any clear one, myself.

Fred, I'm ignorant of your country's politics and business. It seems to me in current times matters might be quite different than they were in the past. But until the middle of the last century (or let's say to the end of World War II) there were plenty of examples. The East India Company ruled India, under Royal charter as a monopoly, even fielding their own army, from the beginning (about 1600)until about 1885 aftern the Indian mutiny.

Actually this system was fairer to the average Engish citizen than the current Canadian and American system is to the average taxpayer. The Indian Army was run at East Indian Company expense. In North America the burden of paying for the foreign wars that support capitalism is born largely by the working and middle classes, as is of course the cost in human lives in the foreign wars.

In Canada the Hudson's Bay company governed thw west, with an assist from the Northwest Mounted Police. Self government didn't come until the latter half of the 19th century.