Though the level of sleaze and avarice in corporate America seems to have reached new heights, little can be done about it until the our government decides to stop being the willing partner of a Corportocracy.

Could the Enron or Worldcom implosions have happened without a compliant Securities and Exchange Commission, willing to turn a blind eye to invented financial statements that were essentially fiction drafted for public consumption?

Or perhaps it's true, as conservatives suggest, that the California's energy crisis was the result of a faulty de-regulation plan. When in fact, the traders that gamed the energy delivery systems were assisted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it refused to enforce it's own price capping rules and then, after California ratepayers had been bilked out of 100's of millions of dollars, refused requests for critical evidence in CA's attempt to recoup the losses in court.

And when it comes to human lives, the record is no better. Why do American mining interests refuse take the kinds of steps to protect their workers that Canadian companies have taken? Because they know that regardless of the scale of the disaster, the fines will never be more than an annoyance--that the Dept. of Labor has no stomach for enforcing it's own rules and even when they do, Bu$hCo will step in to reduce the pain.

Whether it's abdication of responsibility (SEC), covering for corporate wrongdoing (FERC), or refusing to enforce the few public protecting statutes that do exist (DoL), it is clear that our government is a willing participant in corporate excesses--A situation that is manifestly worse for the Americans than in the 19th century when the worst that could be expected was governmental indifference.


I seem to have read the term "corportocracy" some where else. Do you know the origons? I think it is some one who is a pretty decent writer with some insight into the W, Rove nad Co goings on.
I seem to have read the term "corportocracy" some where else.

Actually, I thought that I'd made it up for this post, but thinking about it...it's such an obvious fusion of "corporation" and "democracy" I'd be really surprised is someone hadn't already used it.

Did you Goole it?
Well kvatch as you know I make up words all the time and certainly most of them probably exist somewhere or WOULD if they didn't incorporate potty-mouthery...

Like Fitzmas, Coultergeist, wingnut welfare, and dubyalicious...they just have a way of coming to people at once and its hard to say where they originate.

Sooooo glad to have you back, my dear frog.
Sooooo glad to have you back, my dear frog.

Thanks Lily...A pleasure to be back. Guatemala (where the frogette and I spent our vacation) is an incredible place, and I'm wonderfully refreshed.
In the Shrubs rush to make life easier for massive Corporations, he has given us a society run by them..not government, large corporations.

The meds that keep us alive,the power to warm our homes and light our lamps and the giant AgriBusiness corporations all rule the roost. Those three areas are pretty important to us, and they are privately owned in many cases. Sure most of them have shareholders..but all that usually matters to those folks is the bottom line and the value of their stock certificates and dividend checks.

With less government regulation, these carpetbaggers can pretty much do what they want to us..all the while saying its FOR us..

Libertarians always want less government regulation. I am all for less government as long as the massive Corporate Giants are held accountable for their actions..criminally accountable.

LOL..like thats gonna happen.
Well I think that we need to look at WHAT we seek to regulate and how EFFECTIVELY we aim to do it versus this simplistic thinking often espoused by pseudo-libertarians that all regulation or bureaucracy is bad. I think it is a matter of deciding as a society what domains are appropriate, and this is where we on the left often argue with the right.

Stay out of sex, bedrooms, health decisions, right to die, smoking dope, and pushing your theocentric religion.

But, hold polluters, criminals, resource abusers, public raping, animal killers, water destroyers, etc. accoutnable to the public under the mindset that the environment is a PUBLIC commodity, not a corporate owned commodity. THIS is the difference. We don't need to say that they can't make a profit or innovate.

What we CAN say is that a crime against the public or against the earth is ENFORCEABLE and PUNISHABLE. (Like a crime against a rich white woman reported on tv.)

Guatemala with frogette! cool kvatch.
...little can be done about it until the our government decides to stop being the willing partner of a Corportocracy.

Unfortunately, I'm afraid you're right. The problem is that besides too many willing partners, increasingly those running for office are from the corporate world. That trend alarms me.

In Michigan, we have billionaire Dick DeVos running for governor (the Amway guy). Call me jaded, but why would any billionaire businessman want to waste his time with politics except to gain favorable contacts, legislation, etc.

There are only two billionaire businessmen I trust and might consider voting for - Bill Gates and Ted Turner. At least they come from humble backgrounds and they've been very generous with their money to help good causes and charities.
Kvatch we have been corprotized as a nation and what were Statuates and Laws are merely Toilet Paper to the Thugs that are running our country into the ground...and Bushco has now Lawyered all their top positions so that the manuvers are well orchreastrated around existing laws.....it is deplorable, shameful...So my question is if our Leaders are Morally bankrupt - if they financially bankrupted- do they find their morals?....
So my question is if our Leaders are Morally bankrupt - if they financially bankrupted- do they find their morals

E4E...an excellent question, for which I frankly have no answer. But fortunately, with all of the jokers heading off to the slammer these days (Randy "Duke" Cunningham immediately leaps to mind), we could do a survey. :-)
As far as the word is concerned, I believe Benitto Mussolini said that "Corportocracy" was a better name for his form of government than "Fascism".

Add a comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link