Posted: Apr 13, 2020 8:00 am
Matt_B wrote:Hermit wrote:
Thinking of Australia and the USA, but also - albeit to a less extent - mixed economy social democracies, I sometimes wonder: When a business tycoon dies, who inherits his/her members of parliament/congress/bundestag/...?
For a semi-serious answer, it's more a case of leasing than ownership.
Politicians are generally only beholden to their backers so long as they're funding the next campaign for re-election.
The funds never run dry for as long as there are business tycoons around. Also, in the business world there is no distinction between lease, hire purchase and outright ownership as far as profit making is concerned. Having leased, bought via hire-purchase and owned trucks outright I found the distinctions merely technical, mostly in connection with the ATO, rather than fundamental.
More generally speaking, OliverK's separation of functions, as in capitalism's function being "promoting the cause of capital. It's a wealth creator" and government's function being the "regulation of capitalist activity to limit social or environmental harms, or direct service provision" looks good on paper, but does not reflect reality all that well.
Looking at Australia, for instance, governments do not regulate in an even-handed manner. They are biased in favour of capitalism. So, when it comes to regulating a decent minimum wage, unemployment benefits and pensions they put the brakes on. Sing along with me: "The economy cannot afford it." This does not seem to apply to executives. Then the mantra becomes "If we don't pay them market rates, they'll go somewhere else. Brain drain!" Corporate taxes? A race to the bottom. Governments cite "Capital flight". Tax concessions and outright subsidies for businesses? "If we don't do as they like in Victoria they'll build their factory in Queensland."
For fuck's sake, our federal and state governments don't have the backbone to tell Adani it can't dig giant holes in the landscape, take the lion's share of scarce water resources west of Queensland's dividing range or blow a shipping channel through the Great Barrier Reef. It's good for the economy, don't, cha know? Not even the loyal opposition, the supposed advocates of social democracy, could bring itself to do that. Neither its left nor its right wing.
Our government is beholden to the so called wealth creators. Now the question arises: "Who is the wealth good for?" I hope you are ready for the news. It's not good. Ignoring the fact that almost all of the mining industry and a great deal of industry in general is overseas owned, meaning profits get exported, the remainder gets distributed quite unevenly. The rising tide has stopped raising all boats in the early 1980s. Have a look at the statistics in chart form:
(From the ABC Australia at risk of US-style inequality and dead end jobs, warns ACTU)
(From the ABC Australia at risk of US-style inequality and dead end jobs, warns ACTU)
(From ACOSS: Inequality in Australia 2018 HTML)
(From ACOSS: Inequality in Australia 2018 HTML)
In capitalist countries capitalists create wealth - for themselves and governments regulate in favour of the owners of the capital. This is not only true about Australia. It is also true about the USA and most European countries. The four Scandinavian countries are exceptions rather than the rule, and even there the record is somewhat spotty since the end of the 1960s.
The proverbial adage obtains: He who pays the piper calls the tune. Have a look at who has the money to pay the piper.
(From ACOSS: Inequality in Australia 2018 HTML)
(From Roy Morgan: Wealth inequality in Australia is getting worse)