Thoughts on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and business in general

[Ardent15]

I remember a thread I started which pointed out that the U. S. Chamber of Commerce ranks many (if not most) politicians, Republican and Democratic alike, as being friendly to their interests.

Someone then defended the Chamber, basically saying that "they represent small businesses, not corporations" or something along the lines of that.

Well, I think that, at the end of the day, EVERY for-profit business-whether it has 50 employees or 50,000-is looking at their own cost/efficiency ratio, and not necessarily the "common good." So yes, that means small businesses are not above criticism.

Does that make business lobbies like the U. S. Chamber of Commerce bad? No, but it doesn't mean they are your friends, either.

[William Z. Foster]

1. but, but, but

The government "doesn't have the equipment or expertise," and "has no legal authority" to intervene on behalf of the working class people and the public welfare. Government is just an advisory board to the corporations, smoothing the way for them. Other than that, the government can do nothing.

Now, when it comes to intervening on behalf of the wealthiest few, well, then let the good times roll. The government has unlimited funds, all the expertise and equipment they need, and absolute power to do whatever it takes to suppress working class people and help the wealthy - and it can happen very, very quickly, no matter how big the project or how absurd the demands from the wealthy may be.

[BzaDem]

2. Are you claiming that the government somehow does have the equipment or expertise to stop it?

Or that there's any equipment in the world not currently being used that would do a better job than the equipment being used now?

If so, do you have any evidence of this fact? (As opposed to conspiracy theories about made-up technology that the military purportedly has?)

[Ardent15]

3. He's pointing out the double standard.

When it comes to helping the wealthy and the corporations, then yes, the government is remarkably efficient.

When it comes to public welfare, on the other hand....

[William Z. Foster]

4. no

Of course not.

I am saying that it is a propaganda talking point to say "the government doesn't have the expertise and equipment."

You are merely repeating it once again. What, do you think we haven't already heard it a thousand times?

You are saying that we should trust the corporation, unless I can prove that we shouldn't. Many are. That is my point.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the government was better at fixing leaks than BP is. Yet we have seen people knocking down that straw man hundreds of times. Why would that be? Whom does that serve?

Yet no amount of reasoning with people will get them out of the trance-like state they are in about this. I am not sure if people are merely repeating the talking points they are getting from the mass media, are actually promoting Norquist-style extreme right wing privatization and anti-government ideas and consciously support those ideas, or if they have so internalized the propaganda that these ideas seem "true" and "logical" to them. We are probably seeing a combination of all three.

The role of the government is to protect the public welfare, not to fix leaks. Th government has the power and authority - only government does - to make sure that the public interest is protected. This is the whole point of having any government in the first place.

BP obviously wants a free hand here, and obviously has a tremendous amount of influence over the government. Many here are perfectly OK with that, and are shouting down those speaking for the public interest with talking points like "the government doesn't have the equipment" and such. The government can go get the equipment. "The government doesn't have the expertise." The government can hire all the expertise it needs. "The government doesn't have the power or authority." Oh, and BP does or should?

[BzaDem]

5. I have seen TONS of people here say that we can fix this without BP.

"If we can go to the moon we can fix this" etc etc etc.

"The government can go get the equipment." Sure, from BP. If you know of anywhere else, please provide evidence.

"The government can hire all the expertise it needs." Sure, from BP and the others working on the problem now. If you know of anyone else that has expertise not being used that would make the situation better, please provide evidence that a) the expertise exists and b) it would somehow make the situation better.

Basically, your proposal seems to be one of two things:

1. Exactly what is happening right now, where BP and other companies assisting BP are using their expertise and equipment to plug the leak, answering to the government (with rhetorical flourishes/etc).

2. Replacing some BP equipment/expertise with some other equipment, and with novel expertise that isn't as aware of the current conditions as the expertise currently there.

[William Z. Foster]

7. false and so misleading and deceptive

No one has said that "we can fix this without BP."

We are saying that we can fix this - and probably faster (not just the leak, but the entire disaster) - without BP being in charge.

No matter how much expertise or equipment BP has, that does not qualify them to protect the public interest. Only the government has the power, the authority, the mandate, the duty and responsibility to do that.

"The government can go get the equipment." Sure, from BP. If you know of anywhere else, please provide evidence.

That is ludicrous. We have no way of knowing, do we? That is the problem. That is a problem that we turn to the government to solve. That is why we have a government. Your argument undermines the purpose of having government at all. You said that the government does not have the equipment, so can do nothing. I said the government can get the equipment, and you then turn around and say "what equipment?" Whatever equipment you claim that they don't have, and the reason you gave for why the government cannot manage the operation. That equipment; whatever and wherever it may be. "Not having equipment" is not a legitimate excuse for the government to stand down.

"The government can hire all the expertise it needs." Sure, from BP and the others working on the problem now. If you know of anyone else that has expertise not being used that would make the situation better, please provide evidence that a) the expertise exists and b) it would somehow make the situation better.

We have no way of knowing, do we? That is the problem. Yes, BP experts answering to the people through our government is the answer, rather than those same experts answering to BP and allowing BP to make decisions for the sake of BP that may or may not be in the public interest.

Why not put the entire staff of experts from BP on the federal payroll starting tomorrow? Why not? What expertise do the executives have at anything other than covering BP's ass and protecting the desires and needs of the shareholders, of Wall Street?

I would bet that there are hundreds of experts at BP who are dying for some leadership and direction, dying to get at this problem more efficiently and effectively, dying to be out from under the thumb of corporate management. That is largely true even when there is not a catastrophe. That is the rule everywhere in corporate culture.

Basically, your proposal seems to be one of two things:

False. I did not say that, and you know I did not say that. Refute what I am saying, not what you want people to think I am saying.

Advocating for the government to protect the public welfare is dismissed by you as "rhetorical flourishes?" That is telling. Well, we can just dump the whole thing and let corporations run the show. Who needs the principles and ideals that the government was founded on, the Rights of Man, the Enlightenment? It is all just rhetorical flourishes.

[BzaDem]

8. Yes, they are basically all rhetorical flourishes.

The government is in charge. If the government said no to top-kill, it wouldn't happen. As Obama said, BP wanted to only drill one relief well and the government told them they had to drill two. They didn't ask or say pretty please. They told them.

"We have no way of knowing, do we?"

That is PRECISELY my point. You have NO IDEA. NO EVIDENCE. The government does know, does have evidence, and it is sticking with BP. Rather than some Obama conspiracy to empower corporations for no reason, this shows that the government KNOWS that the equipment to best solve the problem is BP's equipment. It KNOWS the best expertise to best solve the problem is BP's expertise. It KNOWS you are completely wrong.

"That is a problem that we turn to the government to solve."

Yup, and we are turning to the government. And the government has evaluated the situation and decided that BP's equipment and expertise (used under the direction of the government) are the best equipment and expertise. You may like/hate/detest this, but the truth is that the government is in a MUCH better position to know than you, and they basically disagree with everything you are saying.

"I said the government can get the equipment, and you then turn around and say "what equipment?"

No, I said nothing of the sort. I said that the equipment that we need is ALREADY being used. YOU are the one that is claiming that there is some OTHER magical equipment that we aren't using. So YOU need to prove that it exists. And you obviously can't or you would have done so already.

"I would bet that there are hundreds of experts at BP who are dying for some leadership and direction, dying to get at this problem more efficiently and effectively, dying to be out from under the thumb of corporate management."

Prove it.

Your post is nothing but an evidence-less and fact-less diatribe that is asserting that the government (in utilizing BP) is somehow not doing what it believes is the best job it can in fixing the spill.

The minute you provide actual evidence to any of your assertions is the minute your sentences become something other than rhetorial flourishes.

[William Z. Foster]

9. got it

Privatization good - until and unless someone can prove to you that it is bad.

Government bad - until and unless someone can prove to you that government is good.

Repeating the same talking points over and over again, and setting up the same straw men and knocking them down is not a rebuttal.

My last post will stand as my argument.

[BzaDem]

10. Whatever.

In reality, government controlling and directing the only resources we have (private resources) is good, and that is exactly what we are doing. You are the one setting up the strawman of BP acting wtihout direction from the government.

[William Z. Foster]

11. you have argued both sides of the issue

You have now argued that BP has the expertise and so should manage the operation rather than the government, and then turn around and claim that the government IS managing the operation. At that point, there is no point in continuing to discuss this with you. If the government is, as you claim, in charge then why argue with me at all about this?

You can't have it both ways.

I did not say that BP was getting no "direction" from the government - whatever that is supposed to mean.

[BzaDem]

13. The government is managing BP, whose expertise and equipment are necessary and are being utilized.

I am also arguing that the government has determined that the equipment and expertise currently being utilized by BP (and those assisting BP) are sufficient, and that you don't have any evidence to the contrary.

I don't know how that is unclear.

[William Z. Foster]

14. uh huh

Well Salazar doesn't think so. Allen doesn't think so.

Allen said the government's hands are tied.

Salazar says that if BP keeps screwing up, that then the feds will "push them out of the way" and take over.

I just don't get this lie of reasoning - "BP has the equipment and expertise, so the government should not take over the operation from them. Besides, the government already is in charge."

That strikes me as some sort of public relations double talk.

Were the government actually in charge, we would not be having this discussion. We might still be arguing, but not about this.

[Greyhound]

6. Already trying to divert or distract from your point.

You must have hit on something.

:kick: & rec

[Starry Messenger]

12. k & r

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. what you were told is the propaganda

and at one time that was true... but it's been a LOOOOONNNNNGGG time since the Chamber actually looked up for small bidnesses.

[Stevenmarc]

16. The U.S. Chamber use to come to my office at least twice a year

trying to get me to sign up and I use to enjoy showing them the door. The only thing they want from small business is dues money.

They are a big corporate interest lobbying group that might toss small business a bone if it doesn't get in the way of their big picture, big business agenda. Now on the other hand local chambers of commerce are a totally different story, they are all about local small business and something I had no problem belonging to. It's fairly obvious that the person that defended the U.S. Chamber doesn't own a business and doesn't have a clue.

[William Z. Foster]

17. Farm Bureau

Same situation with Farm Bureau - "The only thing they want from small farmers is dues money. They are a big corporate interest lobbying group that might toss small farmers a bone if it doesn't get in the way of their big picture, big business agenda."