Barnard17

PRC and Russia do it in the open because the press won't report on them. It doesn't not-happen in more democratic countries, there's just greater jeopardy that people will find out about it. Why did Governments not curtail banks giving out dodgy loans, why has America's rebuilding of Iraq fallen to American businesses rather than the funds at least propping up the demolished Iraqi economy. Why does no democracy deal with an issue until it's clear that they'll lose an election if they don't? Because to the individual of power it's far more economically beneficial to pocket money off big business and maintain a broken status quo than it is to fight to fix the country.

There are three types of politician. Popular idiots who look pretty but can't find their arse with their hands tied behind their backs. Clever men with an eye to making themselves money. Clever men with convictions to sort stuff out. Most safe seats are the second type, swing seats tend between the first and second. There's precious few of the third and they get in by fluke.

Sorry if I sound like a pessimist, but most states politicians are too disorganised to quell the press and have to keep back-room lobbying under the table. In states such as China and Russia (Gazprom ahoy!) the press is so abysmally downtrodden they can do what they want without fear of public repercussion so on an international scale it's obvious what's going on. The only difference. Politics is and always has been about people in power keeping citizens happy and making as much money on the side as they can (just look at the expenses scandal in the UK). The only time this is different is when the state is in a great governmental revolution, and then the ticking clock begins before the money starts flowing again.

__________________

Neapolitan

sounds kinky

__________________

Ronnie Jane Devo

Fantastic post Barnard, you sum things up better than I could have hoped to.

As to the globalization issue, I believe it is dangerous by way of creating a monopoly situation. When countries maintain their sovereignty they are kept in a sort of competition with each other whereby one country that maintains a better standard of living can produce or attract citizens who are more talented or productive, leading to greater prosperity for that country, and thus forcing more repressive countries to re-evaluate their political structure lest their international influence dwindle to obscurity.

If all that power is concentrated into a world government, there is relatively little keeping the ruling party/cabal in check, so they have a similar leeway to exploit their constituents that a corporate monopoly has to exploit its consumers.

Who?

__________________
Last.fm

shred

As an Aussie I think we should. But I also think it's not going to make much difference in our everyday lives whether we are or we aren't. More important things going on.