Slashdot Mirror
Google and Facebook: Unelected Superpowers?
theodp (442580) writes "'The government is not the only American power whose motivations need to be rigourously examined,' writes The Telegraph's Katherine Rushton. 'Some 2,400 miles away from Washington, in Silicon Valley, Google is aggressively gaining power with little to keep it in check. It has cosied up to governments around the world so effectively that its chairman, Eric Schmidt, is a White House advisor. In Britain, its executives meet with ministers more than almost any other corporation. Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders, but it is up to governments to push back. As things stand, Google — and to a lesser extent, Facebook — are in danger of becoming the architects of the law.' Schmidt, by the way, is apparently interested in influencing at least two current hot-button White House issues. Joined by execs from Apple, Oracle, and Facebook, the Google Chairman asserted in a March letter to Secretary of State John Kerry that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline is not in the economic interests of the U.S.; the Obama administration on Friday extended the review period on the pipeline, perhaps until after the Nov. 4 congressional elections. And as a 'Major Contributor' to Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC, Schmidt is also helping to shape public opinion on the White House's call for immigration reform; FWD.us just launched new attack ads (videos) and a petition aimed at immigration reform opponent Rep. Steve King. In Dave Eggers' The Circle, politicians who impede the company execs' agenda are immediately brought down. But that's fiction, right?"
We need oversight for government, and we need oversight for corporations. We the people* don't give a crap as long as our ipad can stream entertainment. Sometimes I wonder if democracy is dead.
The implication seems to be that we cease google and face book as state assets... nationalize them.
No. We're not some pathetic third world dystopian shithole... yet. And until we are, modern, civilized, and rational countries don't go around stealing the assets of companies or individuals. Its moronic. You do that and you discourage improvement. That's what happens in countries that never get better. They got desperate at some point and they stole from the people. The people responded by not improving anything. They stopped. They know that if they improve anything the government or some other powerful person or group will take it from them.
So they leave the stones in the fields. They don't paint the houses. They don't build anything that they think someone might want to take from them.
Its a nightmare. DO NOT steal from the people. They will shut down and go into survival mode.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Money = Power. Old news.
what are you going to do about it? Remember Occupy Wall Street? It was systematically put down using the anti-terrorism tools from 9-11 that everyone pinky-sweared wouldn't be used on Americans.
Don't get me wrong. I'm in favor of _more_ federal gov't. Civil rights for Black People in the Southern American States only happened because the Federal Government stepped in with the National Guard. Hell, we had outright terrorism in the south up until the late 50s early 60s. Mega corps are just too powerful to be reigned in with any less than a National Government. It's a double edged sword. But it's the only sword big enough...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Supreme Court's 'Citizens United' decision makes it possible for billionaires to pour unimaginable amounts of money into each election cycle. Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners. Personally I would like to see Congress pass laws reversing 'Citizens United,' but until that happy day, we're kind of on the sidelines as the big players battle it out.
--- Often in error; never in doubt!
Just allow companies to only grow up until they have, say, 1000 employees.
After that, they can only split.
What this solves:
No more conglomerates, companies form modular structures, output of 1 company can be reused by another company at a useful granularity.
This leads to much more competition, where previously only monopolies or quasi-monopolies were possible.
This, in turn, reduces and redistributes power.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Interesting that the OP is so deeply concerned with tech companies' lobbying against Keystone XL, but not concerned with the Koch brothers, whose organizations have spent a nine-digit amount of dollars on campaigns and advertisements (often misleading or just plain false) to influence campaigns, with an eye toward issues of interest to the Koch brothers themselves, like getting limits on campaign donations removed and, just to pick a random example, getting the Keystone XL pipeline approved.
"It is nice to know that the computer understands the problem. But I would like to understand it too." --Eugene Wigner
...same as the old one. I mean, those who worry so much most likely aren't worried that Facebook and Google will become the architects of the law, they're worried that they will cease to be the co-architects.
Ezekiel 23:20
but not concerned with the Koch brothers
What's the deal with this Liberal/Progressive/Leftist obsession with two people that the vast majority (85% in one poll I saw) of the American people have never even heard of? It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms. It wasn't the platform, the electorate's exhaustion with the party, the bad economy, or even the usual historical trend away from a two term President.... it was those Machiavellian brothers and Citizens United!
Seriously, it's counter-productive to keep beating that particular drum, and the defeatism is a bit premature to say the least.
Incidentally, I see your Koch brothers and raise you George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. The right is obsessed with those two figures, though not to the same degree the left is obsessed with the Koch brothers.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders
really? How does an oil pipeline have anything to do with anything Google shareholders care about?
Similarly, how does immigration reform benefit Facebook shareholders, who I assume, would be more interested in reducing immigration - especially cheap-ass tech workers than only benefit Facebook executives in keeping pay of those shareholders down.
Actually it's power that politicians worship (haven't you ever seen House of Cards?), which is an entirely different concept than money. To be sure, there's overlap between the two, but they are not one and the same. At the end of the day the best way to send a message to a politician is to vote them and/or their party out of office.
To answer your question about Keystone and Immigration policy: Few people vote on either of those issues. Take a look at the Second Amendment if you want an example of an issue that people are passionate enough to base their votes on, an issue that has little to do with money and everything to do with pure political enthusiasm.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'd suggest money buys a more effective microphone, as one gets on the big newspapers and the big, high-readership sites, far more easily if you have the bucks.
It's on things like IETF discussions that money doesn't help as much, as it's hard to find people to astroturf on technical subjects, and they rapidly become well-known.
davecb@spamcop.net
Some of thse billionaires lean right, like the Koch brothers, and some don't like Google's owners.
Google's owners lean right, but talk left. Like many other tech companies, they donate to liberal advocacy groups, while using tax shelters to shift their profits overseas. They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them. The only difference between Google's owners and the Koch brothers, is that with Google you get an extra layer of hypocrisy.
They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them.
You've just described 100% of the American electorate.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Yay, 'free market capitalism'.
http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
Actually I would argue that the period after WWII where a middle class emerged was an anomoly rather than a norm. And we Americans got so complacent we lost it and the oligarchy wrestled the power back into their hands. And the only reason that period happened was because 2 world wars and 1 depression temporarily destroyed capitalism's grip over people.
what is with everyone having a boner for the koch brothers?? what I mean by this is how can anyone stand there with a straight face and invoke them, without also pointing out that obama has pretty much been fundraiser in chief, hollywood spends billions a year on democrats, and the democrats have their own savior in george soros?
I would LOVE to take all of that money out of politics as well, ALL of it, the koch money, the hollywood money, the soros money, and the FB and google money.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Look at how much of your data - that you posted thinking it was "private" or "personal" - they have already given away to the government. To say that they are partnered with the federal government is an understatement. Facebook might be the greatest gift the government has ever received from a company, excepting the massive contributions that come to all sides from the health insurance industry.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders,
Yes, they can, and should, be blamed for this. Pro-social corporations should be rewarded for their behavior. Anti-social corporations should be punished. This is a pretty basic part of free market theory and the power of the purse. Stop repeating this sociopath-loving dogma as though it had any relation to healthy free market economics. Public backlash against despotic corporations is a very important correcting force in the free market.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Ask Warren Buffet about $$ to halt the keystone pipeline genius.
No brain, no pain.
Actually the left, think Rachel Maddow and MSNBC, are not focused exclusively on the Koch brothers. Articles have been written and shows have been broadcast detailing how 80% or more of the billionaire cash goes to right-wing causes. The "citizens united" decision was a straight party line vote in the supreme court to unshackle the big money interests spending in our "elections". There was a fig leaf in allowing almost irrelevant trade unions the same privilege of spending as much as they want too. BTW you can keep Bloomberg, not really a lefty there. Of course most most don't remember that the campaign finance laws that the court has now gutted with another recent decision were passed in response to the corruption of Richard Nixon and his corporate friends back in the Watergate days. Welcome to to our new Oligarchy folks, billionaires dump cash into the system to make things run to suit them, think Russia or Brazil. A few billionaires at the top serviced by just enough "middle class" types to provide the requisite infrastructure and the rest of us living in cardboard shanty towns.
You do understand that when the Supremes declare something unconstitutional, Congress is not allowed to pass laws reversing it, right?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
IPO shareholder or other shareholder information is the text where it says that the company exists to lobby for benefit of shareholders?
watf? is this again the same shit about how "a stock company has to be doing 100% and use all the dirty tricks to get maximum profit or else they're illegal since stock companies by the law have to try to do that" shit?? a stock company can exist for variety of purposes and goals, "making profit at any cost" is rarely in their stated goals or strategies.
(and since googles famous tagline for this is "do no evil" one could easily argue that if they engage in "evil" lobbying to benefit just their shareholders then they are in fact committing fraud against shareholders. and by the way if schmidt is using googles resources to lobby for exemptions for him then he is actually engaging in fraud... against other stockholders)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Don't doubt they're concerned about the environment, but Google also has a financial stake in energy. From Google Reaps Tax Breaks in $1.4 Billion Clean Energy Bet: "The Galt solar farm, 20 miles south of Sacramento, is one of 15 alternative-energy projects that Google has funded since 2010 as part of a more than $1.4 billion investment in clean power production. That makes the Internet search giant the biggest backer of U.S. alternative-energy projects over that stretch, excluding financial institutions and utilities, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance."
There's no truer election—no more explicit mandate—than voluntary commerce.
I wish I had mod points. I was about to post the same thing but I don't see the need to repeat.
It is absurd to complain that companies are a problem because they are not elected. Society votes every millisecond of every day when we decide to log into Facebook or use Google. We have far more control over what Google does than what our government does, because we can stop funding Google without being thrown in jail.
Companies can still become massive organizations that need to be kept in check by society, but the same can be said of elected governments.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
What do you mean "unelected"? Every time someone uses them, they do so by choice. They are elected every single day... unlike some other "elected" institutions.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Maybe we could go after the industries that paved the way, first.... Big Pharma, Oil, Defense, etc...
You have a point about Google but unless the others are dealt with, does it really matter? If the contest is between the corporations then, so far, Google remains the lesser evil.
Those laws reversing it are properly called "Constitutional Amendments".
It's like the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms.
They want the Koch brothers silenced just like they want Rush Limbaugh silenced. It is unimaginable to them that others might disagree with them without the root of that disagreement being pure greed.
.. their logic is that the 2% are guilty because they are greedy, and the rest of the people that arent liberals are guilty because they arent greedy.
They just cannot believe that half the country disagrees with them, even though clearly half the country isnt "the 2%" They truly believe that "the 2%" are greedy and the other 48% that also disagree with them are "too stupid to vote in their own self interest." This is of course a catch-22
I'm not a Republican. I just cant fucking stand the dripping hypocrisy, nor the unimaginable logical fallacies of the fucking American Democrats any longer. I used to think the Democrats were liberal. They fucking aren't. They are just pure petty intolerant fucks with a giant splash of jealousy coupled with unashamed levels of outlandish hypocrisy.
"His name was James Damore."
The Koch brothers epitmize how big money has taken over politics.
Koch Industries currently leads the oil and gas industry as the top contributor to federal candidates and parties, and is the fifth highest lobbying spender in the industry this year. Soros' hedge fund, Soros Fund Management, has also lobbied at the federal level, but employees have not made campaign donations through a Soros-sponsored political action committee.
How business interests trump individual interests. How they are distorting and even eliminating rational discussion - case in point: "What's the deal with this Liberal/Progressive/Leftist obsession" - "Liberal/Leftist"?
The Kochs are out to screw us. Soros gave over $8 billion to causes related to human rights, public health, and education.
Here, we the little people are fighting among ourselves while the billionaire class is screwing us over - even harming us Kochs want to enslave us. Soros wants to educate us and make sure people have basic human rights.
It's striking how "environmentalism" has turned into this disparaging term when in fact it's about preserving our health - everyone's health and well being.
the Democrats are already trying to rationalize why they've lost the 2014 mid-terms. It wasn't the platform, the electorate's exhaustion with the party, the bad economy, ...
If the Republicans have their way, the economy would get even worse. They want to cut unemployment extensions, raise H1-b limit and eliminate the social safety nets.
That's why the '08 crash wasn't like the Great Depression because of all those "progressive" safety nets.
As far a "losing" the mid-terms, mid terms are mostly old people coming out to make sure gays can't marry, poor people can't abortions (rich people jump on a plane and get one where it's legal), and basically lower taxes while protecting their medicare, SS and making sure we have a strong military - keeping up the military industral complex: keeping the status quo.
I'm not a Republican. I just cant fucking stand the dripping hypocrisy, nor the unimaginable logical fallacies of the fucking American Democrats any longer.
Reminds me of a quote: "I hate conservatives but I really fucking hate liberals." -Matt Stone, co-creator of South Park
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I was an anti MS zealout and linux fan boy back in 2000. Hence why I choose my name. I was trying to find a post where I rant about MS after the DOJ sided with MS where I threatened to quit IT if MS won!! etc
But today it is different. Mainly because I prefer 3 mobile players rather than 2. 2 search engines rather than 1. Yes it is still bad for competition but this hatred for Microsoft stealing and monopolizing everything is so 10 years ago.
It is like being afraid of IBM today. Weird.
Even if you Android and Linux full time a 30% marketshare for Windows Phone will ensure Google wont get too evil and incredibly lazy and wont' set W3C standards to its own version of IE6 in Chrome. Apple is pretty small outside the US and Canada. No one in China even knows about the iPhone and Android is like Windows of the 1990s in PC's over there with 95% marketshare in the smartphone market.
Many slashdotters are still mad at MS and refuse to touch a win based OS. Fine, I feel the same about Sony. However things change and any company whether it is IBM, Microsoft, or even Google can be evil. Remember when Apple was cool again a decade ago and Steve Jobs was a nice guy who could do no wrong with opensource? Gee look what happened when Apple got power? YIKES. Not so cool and hip anymore.
I think competition where no one can set the standards is what is needed. Another facebook may come along someday if it can do something people demand. Myspace was all the rage too you know. I still wonder how facebook beat myspace?
Google search ... that is heard to beat. They are too powerful and the cost of entry is too great to compete. Google though in its current state is nimble and quick to update. Once it settles down to an ugly corporate behemonth with MBA's afraid of change where cost accountants run the show it will then become vulnerable if and only if someone can make a superior product with much much limited resources.
http://saveie6.com/
They thrived when they were trust busted up. Not before
http://saveie6.com/
The customers voted by opting to use their products (or by letting to be used as such), thus giving these companies their power.
US Congress can start a constitutional amendment process, but they can't make it happen by themselves.
You can craft a new law that won't run afoul of the court guidelines.
And that can be done with the Citizens United ruling since the problem was that corporations were explicitly banned from doing activities that individuals could do. Of course, preventing individuals from donating to campaigns might run afoul of other constitutional restrictions such as the First Amendment.
...when the Koch brothers and other corporations peddle influence and push the Tea Party movement on the right; but, when Google et al push on the left, all of a sudden, we need overtsight? Don't get me wrong. Any undue monetary influence on government officials is wrong. It's just interesting how the same people who bemoan Google and Facebook doing this, are the same ass-hats who turn a blind eye to influence on the right.
US Congress can start a constitutional amendment process, but they can't make it happen by themselves.
Splitting hairs.
They can't do anything by themselves. Even a regular bill needs to go through the senate, and end with a presidential signature... etc.
Money is speech?
You are seriously fucked.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
When I first used Google, it was a competitive search engine. I kept using Altavista for a number of years; what ultimately made Google win out was the number of pages it indexed.
Now, I find Google's results are less than encouraging. Too much attention is paid to what products I might want, and how to bump pages like Wikipedia, YouTube and Google news to the top of search results. Google has its interests at heart before mine, and having my interests come first was what made Google a good product.
As it turns out, this is the path of monopoly that most companies, governments and social groups embark upon. They start out struggling, but when they gain power, they turn toward a defensive role which seeks to maintain position and instead of becoming more effective at their task, becoming more effective at widening margins.
The result is a less useful product and a stronger company. To justify itself, said company will begin various social engineering and charity products to convince all of us that they're good guys who are not evil. The reality is that their self-interest has eclipsed ours and now we are lambs to the slaughter.
Futurist Traditionalism
Before them, it was the koch brothers, before then it was bilderberg, before that it was dupont, and standard oil, etc..... going all the way back to alexander hamilton and his federalist cronies lobbying for big business intrests of the day.
Here is a fact about today's society. We are ruled by the television, who has what rights is deterimined by PR men, and sold to you with celebrities, they determine what is and is not culturally acceptable, and they can and do change standards everyear to suit their will.
Want it to stop?
start a cultural revolution. Next time your in a movement for change, tell the PR and admen your not for sale.
At least when I was growing up, people were not affraid to say "I'm not for sale".
I repeat, legal oppression only exists because of government. If you cannot see that simple truth, you are wilfully blind.
Primogeniture and entailment were government laws which enforced class distinctions and warfare -- withotu government creation and enforcement of classes, there would be no class oppression and warfare.
Government laws prevented women from owning property, voting, or having much freedom at all, and made marriage rape legal.
Slavery and segregation were the direct result of government laws. Society was integrating on its own until government stopped it and reversed course.
It's very simple: government creates laws to justify its oppression. You claim to get your history from the People's History. It's not much of a history if that single lesson doesn't come through loud and clear.
Infuriate left and right
Government is only a corporate tool. Corporations are the shadow actors created by the super-rich to give themselves vehicles for action that are both superior to the state, and state-sanctioned legitimacy in this superiority.
Hating the "Government" is like pig-iron hating the hammer and the forge - not the Blacksmith.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Even a regular bill needs to go through the senate, and end with a presidential signature... etc.
The Senate is part of the US Congress. And they can pass veto-proof legislation with supermajorities in both branches of Congress. So legislation is not at all the same as a constitutional amendment.
Government is only a corporate tool.
You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
You can quit funding the government without being thrown in jail any time you want. It just means losing the benefits of funding the government like having a good job. Shit if everyone decided to sit down, not work and not fund the government, government would respond as fast as Google would respond to everyone boycotting them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Because the guy on the radio said so, and he swears just like a regular Joe so he must be authentic.
You should read the American Constitution. It features a democratically elected House of Representatives, A Senate appointed by the democratically elected States governments and a President elected by people appointed by the democratically elected States government. This makes it a representative democracy which having a President also makes it a Republic.
China is also a Republic but doesn't have the democratic elected part and yet all you fixate on is that your country is like China, a Republic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Citizens United wasn't about donating to campaigns; it was about spending money separate from the campaign organization (i.e. Freedom of Speech). Congress certainly could limit how much individuals, corporations, unions, etc. can spend on political messages. But neither side wants to kill that goose.
Google is OWNED by the "people" who OWN the Government.
Who creates money?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
1 have strict limits on the amount of funding that can be given to a given elected official (say X million per year TOTAL to include non cash gifts (use the tax value) and gifts to persons within 3 jumps of a give official) also ALL GIFTS ARE TO BE MADE PUBLIC AND POSTED TO A STANDARD LOCATION (official website??).
2 term limits lets say 3 terms and if you can be proven innocent of any crimes you can spend your third term in office and not jail.
3 Elected officials should be forbidden any after office jobs in industries that benefited from a given officials lawmaking (do 2 jumps on this part)
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
Well of course legal oppression only exists because of government. That's true by definition of "legal". That doesn't mean getting rid of government gets rid of the ability for groups of people to systematically oppress other people. If government laws oppress people, they are used as a tool by existing sets of people with power and money. The government doesn't do it in a vacuum, and a government given no power by the true elite has no ability to enforce these things. If there were no government, as indeed there generally hasn't been in most societies for most of human history, then there are other ways by which oppression can take place: religion, vigilantism, crime lords and syndicates, corporations of various types, etc. People *will* organize in groups to solidify power and they *will* use it against others.
Google's owners lean right, but talk left. {...} They are all for big liberal government programs as long as some else pays for them.
Which makes them different from ... what liberal, anywhere?
Any liberal who wants to pay more tax can send the extra money right to the feds; they will take it gladly.
How many do it? Oh that's right, none (statistically, anyway). Because they want the feds to vacuum up someone else's money; not there's.
Make that "theirs" :)
Of course that error makes my thought completely null and void ...
Everyone gets a choice on whether to use them everyday, which is much more than anyone can say about government.
The power of Google and Facebook derives from people using them, clicking on their ads, buying their products, and buying their shares. You don't like what they do? Use a different company. If enough people feel that way, they will disappear.
The Senate is part of the US Congress
You are right of course. I misspoke.
And they can pass veto-proof legislation with supermajorities in both branches of Congress.
Yes they can, but that's not the usual way. The president doesn't veto that much in the first place, and of the vetoes congress only overrides a tiny fraction.
So legislation is not at all the same as a constitutional amendment.
I never said it was the same thing; I know well they are very different.
But you are splitting hairs saying its not congress' job to amend the constitution. It can't do it by itself, and it doesn't even have to originate them, but its certainly the origin of most amendments in historical practice, and by most, I mean ALL 27 of them. So its disingenuous to represent that its not their job to amend the constitution.
Google can't be blamed for this: one of its jobs is to lobby for laws that benefit its shareholders
And it doesn't strike you that this is just completely fucked up? That corporations think it's their job to fuck over the very society that made them possible in the first place?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
I don't know. I can imagine quite a bit.
Necron69
Who creates money?
Government does. Notice that every major currency in the world is backed by a government or in the case of the Euro, a group of governments. You have to go pretty far down in scale before you find currencies that aren't government-backed, such as BitCoin or currencies in MMOs.
But you are splitting hairs saying its not congress' job to amend the constitution.
I didn't split that hair. Looking back through the thread, no one else did either. We were responding to the original claim that Congress could pass a law to reverse Citizens United. It can't. All the talk of constitutional amendments (which aren't legislative law) doesn't change that.
Congress certainly could limit how much individuals, corporations, unions, etc. can spend on political messages.
Without violating the First Amendment? I think it's much harder to do that than you do. Political messages fall into two protected categories of the First Amendment - speech and petition for redress of grievances.
The point remains that if Citizens United is to be reversed, the job of making that happen, for all practical purposes, still falls to congress.
Who creates money?
Government does. Notice that every major currency in the world is backed by a government or in the case of the Euro, a group of governments. You have to go pretty far down in scale before you find currencies that aren't government-backed, such as BitCoin or currencies in MMOs.
Wrong.
Look into Federal Reserve system. It is not Federal. It does not maintain a reserve. It is a consortium of privately owned and undisclosed banks.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how%20the%20federal%20reserve%20creates%20money
In modern, neo-Liberal economic societies Government borrows money from private, central banks. This money is called into creation as debt. The creation of the money is an act of the bank - an accounting phantom - entering new assets as black ink on their ledgers.
Government no more "creates money" under this scenario, that you do, by using a credit card.
If "governments" backed the money, they wouldn't declare "austerity" programs on their own constituency - but instead issue jubilee forgiveness, with full restoration of productive capacity, etc. Instead, the EU and US BOTH "bail out" creditor institutions, ceding all right to their own resources and productive capacity to ownership by the bank.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Wrong.
Don't I actually have to be wrong first before this term applies? I've heard the ZOMG Federal Reserve argument before. The Fed is an institution created and backed by the power of the US government. The US government runs the top level of the Fed and happens to control in other ways what policies the Fed can implement (for example, via pressure on bank members).
The whole scheme of money creation was created and endorsed by the US government who backs it up with a variety of means. As an example of that last statement, I suggest you actually look at a US bill. It has on it "this note is legal tender for all debts, public and private". Being required to pay your US taxes, both federal and state, with US dollars is yet another way the US government backs its currency. You can also pay debts and public charges with currency.
In modern, neo-Liberal economic societies Government borrows money from private, central banks. This money is called into creation as debt. The creation of the money is an act of the bank - an accounting phantom - entering new assets as black ink on their ledgers.
Like any other transaction, it is a mutual act of two or more parties. This is an act of the bank and an act of the government.
I think the chief distinction represented by the Citizens United ruling versus the previous status quo was that the sources of the money could be kept secret following that ruling.
Government is only a corporate tool.
You can say that, but that doesn't make it so. Governments have far more power than corporations since one can readily acquire money with power, but not the other way around. Why would you even think that a company like Google would have more power than a government?
Erm... what? "Governments" in the abstract have more theoretical power than corporations, sure, but over here in reality? Corporations have far more power than individual elected politicians... and that's what counts. Money can fundamentally influence views and frame the debate (ownership of media), and large-scale fundraising is a de facto prerequisite for most candidates. Elected officials need patrons, and the patrons expect something in return.
However, government is more than a corporate tool. It's also a tool of the wealthy, interest groups, and blocks of voters (yes, even unions).
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
Technically you're correct. There were other search engines. AltaVista however struck me as the first really useable one and Google the first to do it on a large scale.
I think PageRank is a lesser way of getting things to work than some of those old technologies. It's really good at serving up what's popular, but that's usually also what's wrong or tangential.
Futurist Traditionalism