Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams

from the crony-capitalism-is-corruption dept

Via Larry Lessig we get series of Venn diagrams showing the revolving door between big business and government. When people talk about regulatory capture, this is what they mean. When people talk about corruption and crony capitalism, this is what they mean. If you want a quick visual idea of why so few people trust this government to do the right thing for the people, rather than the big companies, this is why:

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Mapping Out The Revolving Door Between Gov't And Big Business In Venn Diagrams”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Jay (profile) says:

Hypocrisy from inside

Hillary Clinton now has no credibility. Since she’s been a part of the Monsanto law firm, it should be evident how much IP laws can harm the message she’s trying portray with her audience. And yet, she’s said nothing about SOPA and PIPA.

Monsanto has been trying to use patents to abuse other countries for decades. This is the reason we can’t get true patent reform. They have someone on the inside (a lot of someones!) to warn Monsanto of true reform until it’s watered down to ineffectiveness.

We can’t have copyright law that favors the public because of all of the regulatory capture. We have no say in the enforcement angle because ICE can download whatever they want while selectively using the law to put others in jail. And yet, I’m reading how ICE isn’t all that good with doing their professed job. Now they want to add copyright to the mix. And they’ve done a fine job of mucking that up as well.

As I’m aware, the US has taken a truly bad turn. We have a society that has tried to involve the public (1st box). We are working to replace those in government who are bad (2nd box). I have no faith in the 3rd box, because those in the judicial system have been elected by corrupted officials of the 2nd box.

What truly worries me is if we get into the 4th (ammo) box.

If we can’t steer our government from the fascism that it has turned into…
If we, the people, can’t change our government with non violent protest…
If we, the people, can’t find peaceful resolutions to the problems dominating our society…

Then how are we to call ourselves a free society? We can’t. How are we to avoid that last liberty box? It’ll be inevitable. We have a government using censorship and secrecy to oppress the people. There’s a list of conspirators up above. Even if we can remove most of these people from offices of power, how do we change all of the damage that they’ve caused?

As I see it, there are a number of things that can be done:

– Change our voting system from electoral First Past the Post
– Eliminate money in politics
– Close the revolving door of politics

I’m sure that once these steps are taken, everything else can fall into place. If these steps are not taken, I’m sure the government will be the next thing taken down similar to Iraq (irony?), Libya, or Tunisia.

Eliot (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Hypocrisy from inside

Officers must disobey any order that violates the Constitution:
All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.[1] It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer’s service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States

Anonymous Coward says:

It’s a wonderful set of diagrams, but it ignores the basic reality of work:

Companies hire people who have the right skills, the right abilities, the right experience, and yes, the right contacts. They do it all the time, in all sorts of areas.

Ever see a salesman moving from company to company? They are hired for all of the reasons, and they keep building up, and moving on to others where they can get more money or better conditions, using their built up skills and contact list as a selling point.

If you are an industry dealing with the government, would it not be good to hire people with government experience to head up that area?

If you are the government, trying to regulate an industry (say farming), would you not want to hire someone with farm industry experience, and perhaps someone who has experience on the other side of the “dealing with the government” issue?

Further, let’s be clear here: Every time there is a change of President, change of control of congress, etc… there is always a long line of people who are pushed out of the door (loyal to the other party) and replaced by new people (loyal to the new rulers of the day). There is fairly high turnover in a number of government departments at the higher levels as a result of this. Some of the smart ones leave before the ax falls (usually in years 3 and 7 of a presidency), the dumber ones are culled after the election.

The diagrams are nice, but they just indicate something that is normal, and to be fair to both sides, usually the best option.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Paper Tigers?

Analogy fail, sorry!

It’s not “normal” because it happens to happen, it’s normal because all business (including those not dealing with the government) do the same things in hiring people.

They want the best candidates with the best experience, the best of everything. In the case of filling a job that would deal with a government agency, work experience at that agency would obviously be a benefit.

If I run a printing company, and I want to get into printing for commercial shopping malls, hiring someone who has experience either in selling to malls or someone who has worked as a buyer at the malls would be probably a good idea. It’s NORMAL.

Your attempt to deflect isn’t normal. Sorry.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?

This doesn’t make it ethical.

Your printing company sales comparison is lame and stupid. A commercial printer is unlikely to be right laws that restrict the operations of other printers, or colluding with government to give special protection to your brand of product.

I’m also not sorry your analogy is a stupid failure. You condescending twat.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?

You’re ignoring ethical implications.

It’s normal to hire someone with the right skills or contacts. If Joe Smith leaves one big advertising firm and gets a job at another, that’s normal. Joe Smith has skills and experience related to the job at the new firm. The one firm doesn’t regulate the other firm. There’s no unethical advantage to hiring Joe Smith after he leaves the other firm.

With the revolving door of government jobs, regulators end up working for the companies they were supposed to regulate and vice versa. Joe Smith doesn’t do a bad or unethical job at his new advertising firm because he has a bias towards his old firm. But a former corporate employee employed by the government as a regulator of his former industry/company has a greater likelihood of showing bias towards his old firm. He might even go back there after his government employment is over. Thus, he will likely show preference to decisions that are beneficial to his old firm.

With the knowledge of the revolving door, regulators can make decisions, like approving a big corporate merger or purchase like with the Comcast scenario, that benefit corporations, but harm the public and competition, and they know they can get a more lucrative job in the industry as a reward.

This is “normal” in our corrupt system but in no way ethical.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Paper Tigers?

Sadly, someone who works in, I dunno, a government position dealing with genetically altered seeds doesn’t have a ton of places to work, do they?

What are you going to tell the guy? When the government changes and the political parties come through and clean house, appointing a boss over you that you cannot work with, who makes your life tough until you leave… you are not suppose to go get work in the same field?

You aren’t playing with pieces on a chess board here… these are people, who need jobs, need income, need to work… you would limit their rights to work?

Cloksin (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Paper Tigers?

Here’s the problem with your analogy, someone who gets educated in the field of genetically altered seeds isn’t going to go looking for work in Congress, they’re going to go looking for work in the private sector with a firm that deals with genetically altered seeds.

Someone who goes looking for work in Congress will most likely have gotten educated in political science (why the hell its called a science is beyond me).

The problem is that once those in Congress who have been educated in poly-sci have shown that they’re willing to make backroom deals for certain industries (they have no background in that industry other than greasing palms with it) when their tenure in Congress is up they tend to move into that industry, in an upper management decision-making role.

On the other side of the coin, most people who end up in upper management roles in big industry have not been educated in the specifics of that industry, they have been educated in “business” in general, and for the most part, if they had to make decisions that would affect their product directly, their product would fail (they leave those decisions to the people educated in the specific field). When they see a need to sway legislation in their favor to stifle competition, and lobbying alone isn’t netting the results they desire, they themselves run for office, in order to help the industry (or specific company) that they left, many times remaining on the board of said company.

That is how the revolving door begins, once their tenure is up in one, they move to the other, then back, lather, rinse, repeat. These people are not educated in the nitty gritty details that make their particular industry function, they are upper management whose job function is generic and can be moved from one industry to another with no noticable difference, from the recording indusrty, to the movie industry, to big pharma, to big oil, so on and so on. And that is why your analogy, and your argument in general is an epic FAIL!

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Paper Tigers?

The unethical nature of the types of decisions made by these people can reduce competition, eliminates jobs, harm the economy, and may even endanger lives depending on the industry and the regulations…So yeah, if I had a choice between limiting one bureaucrat’s ability to unethically take advantage of their position and thousands of other people keeping their jobs and their mortgages and their lives, I would definitely pick the greater good here.

rubberpants says:

Re: Re: Re: Paper Tigers?

Nice rationalization: everyone else does it so why can’t government employees?

Because they should live up to a higher standard of integrity since they’ve chosen to represent societies interests as a public servant.

“But skilled people won’t do it if it limits them!”, you were about to say?

Fine with me. I’ll take an honest public servant any day over a self-serving expert.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Credentials aren’t the issue.
The people responsible for deciding how much tax money (or whatever else they want from us) we give to these companies them shouldn’t be allowed to take kickbacks since their decisions will be biased. Being hired by them later is a kickback. It’s definately not the best option, it’s a environment that promotes corruption in government.

Planespotter (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The bribery and kickback comes with the 6 figure sums of money these people get when they leave Government and walk into the private sector. That just makes the whole thing even more corrupt, they are able to do it legally.

Yes people are hired based upon their skillset, they are also hired based upon the contacts they have…. I wonder why Chris Dodds was hired by the MPAA? He’s been a politician since 1976, what does he know about the Movie Industry?

It’s not rocket science… I’ll scratch your back while in office and eventually you’ll pay me $1.2 million to run one of the largest lobbying organisations in the US.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

It’s not even that, even if nothing is said and they just give the cushy jobs to the politicians they like so future ones will take note, or say magically all those listed above were hired only on their skillset, etc and not in any way as a reward for their prior service nor as an inspiration to future politicians, it still wouldn’t matter. The fact that it *could be* a reward for prior service is enough. As long as that you leave that form of kickback open, you are encouraging corruption and biased decision making.

pixelpusher220 (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“If you are an industry dealing with the government, would it not be good to hire people with government experience to head up that area?”

Good for you? Perhaps. Good for the taxpayers? Not nearly as likely.

It’s called ‘conflict of interest’ for a reason. There needs to be a moratorium or waiting period when any government employee can go work for the private sector on which they have had influence.

It’s a slippery slope to be sure, but we’re seeing it slide in the other direction badly based on the above charts.

el_segfaulto (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The problem isn’t with whether or not it is normal. If I (as a developer) left my current cushy government job and took one in the private sector, I get to carry my skills and vendor contacts. The situation described in the article is a completely different animal. The people taking the jobs were either working for the private sector and now want the ability to regulate said sector, or they were regulators wanting jobs in the exact industries that they were supposedly in charge of regulating.

I hope you can see the difference here. The average Joe (not the crazy one I see here from time to time) doesn’t have the ability to transform an entire industry and then quickly leave to take a new job which reaps the benefits (see the NBC/Comcast merger). I understand the gist of what you’re saying, but the basic premise treats the politicians as regular people instead of the power-mad sociopaths that they typically are.

Another AC says:

Re: Re:

Well, no. Your examples all make sense when talking about exchanges of personnel from private to private entities. As soon as you throw the public government entities in the mix, there are many new considerations you are ignoring – conflicts of interest (for both the private and public parties) and anti-competitive practices (i.e. creating laws that favor your company at the expense of your competitors) to name just two.

What you call the ‘best choice’ is the best choice for the private corporation, but not for the people the government represents. Your opinion seems very one-sided in that respect.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: usually the best option. What???

If you want elected and appointed government officials to be beholden to their constituents instead of their past and future employers the best option is to prevent from said officials from working in any industry they had even the remotest contact with, and prevent anyone who held a job in an industry from being appointed to a government position where they oversee that industry.

Your argument would be stronger if it actually worked. Instead we have former bank executives letting banks leverage their positions at ridiculous levels, and elected officials regulating industries they know nothing about.

(to paraphrase: I know nothing about how the internet works and I don’t want to hear from any geeks. I just want to pass this bill.)

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re:

It’s really quite simple that I’m amazed you don’t see it. They bribe people in government with cushy, high paying jobs for when their term is up. They do this to get those people to promote policy that is favorable for their business. It’s bribery through employment. A former lobbyist has openly admitted to this.

If I offered you a job with a salary equal to or greater than your government salary after you finish your term if you promoted policy favorable to my business, wouldn’t you be tempted to sell out?

What is normal is for Comcast to hire the former VP from Time Warner or BP to hire the CEO from Shell. That is hiring people for their qualifications. Hiring from the government agency that regulates them is trying to buy favorable policy (i.e. bribery).

It should be illegal for people whom take regulatory/legislative positions in government to later take positions in the industry they were charged to regulate. A 5 or 10 year waiting period after the end of their final term may be necessary to remove incentive for offering these cushy jobs to people doing the regulating. Nor should any former employee of such regulated industries take a position in government that regulates their former employer. That is to say, no one from Comcast may serve in the FCC nor no one from Monsanto may serve in the FDA, etc.

Before you start crying about how that is unfair, remember that these people took this job for the welfare of the the American citizens and they took an oath to such effect. It is a public service job and that must come before their own ambitions. If they are using these positions for personal gain, they are not serving the public good and do not merit the responsibility of such an office. If that is the case, then they should be looking for work in the private sector as that is where that type of ambition belongs. If you work in government, you serve the people, not yourself. There are plenty of jobs out there for self-serving types.

DanKC says:

Re: Re:

You are very correct. The only way not to do this is to only take career politicians… i.e. politicians from say college on. Otherwise, you will always be bringing in people from industry or those who have worked with industry (say a lawyer or legal counsel for an industry).

Also, you need experience. We saw in the GW Bush administration where bringing in people with no knowledge of the areas they were administer led to total dysfunction. You need someone with experience and that will mean a tie to industry. But they should be forced to recuse themselves in areas of potential conflicts of interest but as we’ve seen this doesn’t happen. All to often these administrators become internal lobbyists.

Silent Majority says:

Re: Re:

This is not a display of individuals that have the “right experience” for the job. This is a display of individuals that have the “right connections” and very little else. Making it up as they go along so long as business profits at the expense of the government itself, the people that pay taxes to create this government and serve it. This is government perverted to serve a few, not a government that serves the many. It’s a failed form of governing.

Tom says:

Re: Re:

Nope. You’ve got it all wrong.

For one, you think the high turnover rate leads to new people regulating an industry or working for that industry. In fact, many literally are revolving door hires that go back and forth between regulating an industry and working for that industry. So, they make the rules, then benefit from them–rinse, repeat.

On top of that, the very ephemeral nature of public office you describe gives insiders even *more* incentive to rig the game in their industry’s favor because when they’re out of office, that’s where they need to go again to get a job. Or with your understanding of how the business world works, do you think these highly accomplished people, both from a practical standpoint and a social standpoint, want to make it *harder* for businesses that they’re soon going to be interviewing with?

Dark Helmet (profile) says:


The father of fascism once suggested that the early stages of fascism would be better called corporatism, as the state and the businesses within become unified. He anticipated the state taking over business, but the result can be the same if the reverse occurs.

These diagrams illustrate how that is occurring in American govt. today….

anonymous says:

looks like they all have their priorities right then. ‘me’ first, second and third. the people last! there is no way that any person elected to represent the people should be allowed to take a position in ANY corporation, industry or company and there is no way that any person elected to represent the people should be allowed to take ‘campaign contributions’ from any corporation, industry, company or individual! the self-serving interest these ‘officials’ have takes priority over all else. look at the pile of shit we are in now because of what has happened and what these ‘representatives’ are allowed to do. call USA ‘the land of the free’? what an absolute joke we have become!

Old Man in The Sea says:

Re: No Republicans?

Noticeable even by an alien (as you Sknay would put it). From way over here, we see the Democrats as being the left-wing (Labour Party) of politics and the Republicans as being the right-wing (Liberal and National Parties) of politics.

But when it boils down to it, it is still the same lard being dished up to the general populous, while the cheese and butter are being reserved for those who can be the fat cats. ‘Tis a rare politician who will stand for the people he/she represents. We look upon the independents here as mostly ones who are waiting to be bought. Though the Greens and the Sex Party are influential wack-jobs here.

Enjoy your day y’all.

jb (user link) says:

Is the data correct?

It looks heavily weighted towards Democrats? Might about many lost the last Congressional election releasing a lot of staffers. Probably needs to go back a few more election cycles.

That said, both parties are corrupt, particularly if defined as not acting/voting in the country’s long term interest. It’s like choosing between eating rancid meat and drink spoiled lumpy milk. Washington needs a massive amount of reforms and more transparency. Way way way too much money sloshing around and little or no accountability.

demented (profile) says:

If we don’t give the gov’t an enema NOW (flush out all the cr&p bribed reps and senators and the corruption), then this will lead to two things in rapid succession:

1) Open fascism
2) Revolution

I don’t think anyone wants that, but it’s gonna happen. As Americans, these people always been taught that our country stemmed from righteous rebellion, and conditioned to believe that it is morally acceptable. So if they get pushed too far, I suspect that would happen again…

Anonymous Coward says:

Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams

These diagrams are tripe: small samples; sometimes it’s federal, sometimes federal and state; sometimes it’s a single company, sometimes an entire industry.

I agree there are serious issues with crossover between government and industry, however would you make the same diagrams if the folks were from a “good” company like Google?

And you criticize Congress for being uninformed about internet issues with SOPA, yet you chide government for employing people who are experts in their field. This seems disingenuous and hypocritical.

This is just muckraking, below the level of journalism I have come to expect from this site.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams

I didn’t say they were “good”, the OP did. I merely said they shouldn’t have any influence on government policy as companies like Enron shouldn’t. Good or evil aren’t words you can apply to a corporation. They have no morality (despite those that try not to be “evil”), their only priority is to increase profit for its shareholders, by any means they can get away with. Whether doing something legal or illegal, it’s only about which will yield the most profit. The “good” and “evil” choices are just business decisions.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams

I meant that reply one level up actions, but Corporations are more of an extension of their shareholders wishes. They can be non-profit save the whales wishes, or make me money at all costs wishes or somewhere in between. When they are publicly traded, the shareholders wishes are going to be make money at all costs as long as I don’t get in trouble.

Regardless, companies can still be judged by their actions. That their underlying motivation is money doesn’t prevent that.

crade (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Lies, damned lies, and venn diagrams

Sorry, that reply was actually meant for the OP
but Corporations are more of an extension of their shareholders wishes. They can be non-profit save the whales wishes, or make me money at all costs wishes or somewhere in between. When they are publicly traded, the shareholders wishes are going to be make money at all costs as long as I don’t get in trouble.

Regardless, companies can still be judged by their actions. That their underlying motivation is money doesn’t prevent that.

scott (profile) says:

Better analysis

Really, this should be broken down better. There is a mix of pre-government and post-government, or pre-private and post-private positions, if you want to get good clear indications, you should break it down as both ways, like so:

Government employee to public sector
Public sector to Government employee.

It would make things more clear and probably clear up a lot of the misconceptions you are propagating with the current data. Not that I have missed the point, but it would just be a better representation I believe.

Anonymous Coward says:

Some of the names on the list do not particularly concern me since they joined the USG while working within the private sector in the relevant field for which they assumed government responsibilities. Persons such as these are many times associated with science and technology.

It is the congressional staffers, the former elected officials, and others of similar ilk who have little to offer but access to decision makers within the USG, that I find particularly troubling. Unfortunately, and this is where we have a significant disconnect in our system of laws, it is not at all unusual for Congress to pass laws of general applicability, but not applicable to Congress. I am unsure if this special dispensation carries as well over to the executive branch, but I have no reason to believe it does not.

Anonymous Coward says:

You mean the government seeks the same experts in their fields that businesses seek? SHOCKER!!

I would be more surprised if these lists didn’t intersect, that would mean that either business isn’t selecting the appropriate people for the job or the government isn’t. This is non-news, and an non-issue.

If you really want to track government corruption follow the money trail and see what congressional members do after leaving office. They are paid off after the fact by being given jobs on the board of companies they assisted.

Greevar (profile) says:

Re: Re:

The last part of your comment contradicts the first. That is the exact point these diagrams mean to make; people in government take private sector jobs in industries they previously regulated or take government office that regulate industries they previously worked in to give their former employers favorable policy. Then, they come back to their former employers to reap the rewards of their loyalty.

Elder-Geek (profile) says:

What the Chart Does not Show

What the chart does not show is time and events.

You don’t see people on the right side of the chart in the Industry Sector moving into the Government Sector.

What you do see, are government officials both elected and appointed who have taken contributions, vacations and other perks from many Industries. Then these same politicians voted for policies that are very favorable to an industry when common sense would indicate it was the wrong thing to do. Just months later these government officials then get high paying jobs, often doing nothing in the very companies that they found for or created polices favorable to.

Some real fast numbers. There are like 115 people on the list. About 80 are staffers and 35 are former Congressmen/Senators.

So 35 congressmen, 34 are democrats and 1 was Republican

80 Staffers. 1 Ford, 2 Reagan, 1 Bush Sr, and 3 Bush, totaling 7. With a breakdown of 73 Democrats and 7 Republicans.

Mind you, that is just a quick eyeballing of the list. It does not take in account voting records. It looks like for all the talk of protecting the little people from big business. Democrats talk a big talk, but then stand up for and get jobs with big business far more often than Republicans do.

The Devil's Coachman (profile) says:

Re: What the Chart Does not Show

You act like there is some kind of difference between the two parties of meaningful significance, thus calling yourself out as delusional. Both parties are bought and paid for, and your vote is utterly meaningless. I fully intend to skip the next elections, and all the ones after that. Nothing will change for the better. As George Carlin said, “you’re owned”.

cjstg (profile) says:

what do you expect

yes, i realize that people who work for the government then go on to work for the companies that they regulate (or support). but what do you expect? it’s not like the government pays enough for people to retire after a few years working for an administration or congressman.

where else would you expect them to work after they have worked for the government?

Anonymous Coward says:

Useless Venn Diagram Is Useless

Out of every name listed, only 7 are Republican. How can the creator of this diagram possibly say this is a D-only issue? Most all of the administration listed is Obama’s, yet there is a very well-known issue of a revolving door during W’s terms, and only three people are listed?


All this is is a partisan attack on anything Democratic or liberal (notice the heavy lean toward the Obama administration in the list?) while trying to appeal to Occupy and similar crowds. This is just a bait and switch.

Astroturfing at its finest.

TtfnJohn (profile) says:

All I’m gonna say is that I’m not at all surprised and almost beyond outrage.

(Things aren’t a hell of a lot better in Canada, mind you, though there are several more degrees of separation but it’s here too.)

I doubt it would be any different under a Republican presidency in the United States than it is under Obama. Like as not most of the names wouldn’t change either.

Welcome to the real world of realpolitik. It’s not at all pretty is it?

Thomas (profile) says:

Oh my...

just goes to show that business owns the government. The 1% rules and the remaining 99% are just the poor peons to be exploited as needed.

I’m only surprised the 1% doesn’t institute a forced program where everyone in the 99% has to register tissue types then when someone in the 1% needs an organ, they simply tell someone to give up the organ. Might be hard to enforce, especially if a heart transplant is needed, but then haven’t the 1% had their hearts replaced by rotary pumps?

David Herron (user link) says:

Very interesting - but also very very very slanted

In every one of these Venn Diagrams the government positions you listed were overwhelmingly had “D” or “Clinton” or “Obama” or even “Carter” beside the name, implying that each position with such a marking is a Democratic leaning position. One could conclude from these charts that the Democratic party is full of Crony Capitalists. HOWEVER it’s obvious you could construct a similar chart of people whose government positions had “R” or “Bush” or “Reagan” after their names, and are Republican leaning people. The messed up crony capitalistic system crosses party lines and is just part of how the screwed up political system runs. It’s filled with self serving people looking for gain, and it doesn’t matter whether an R or a D follows their name.

It doesn’t serve anybody to have you present slanted evidence of this sort.

Dirk Bode (profile) says:

Mapping Out the Revolving Door... Article above

I have seen a couple of these venn diagrams before, but not all of them in one place. I am constantly involved in the infowar, trying to wake people up… and this my actually be the very best article, all in all, I have ever seen. There is so much to understand, and so much truth in such a small space!!!! I love it! Now if people will just study it! It could open up some closed minds.

Anonymous Coward says:


The problem is with the very idea of CORPORATIONS… the entity of CORPORATION is supposed to be in PUBLIC interest and legally bound to uphold only one thing… The bottom dollar… and when CORPORATIONS benefit from legislation rather then the general PUBLIC benefit its somehow justified because a CORPORATION has the same legal rights as a PERSON but with one difference… the CORPORATIONS have massive amount of money… PEOPLE do not.. we have whats called CONFLICT OF INTEREST …

Rach the nurse says:

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Dec 22nd, 2011 @ 8:05am

That is all fine and good. Its a great argument except for one thing: conflict of interest. It is unethical. Surely you dont mean to compare a car salesmen to someone who is responsible for passing laws that affect people. When I say people I mean everyone except them because the power and financial gain from this puts them in a position where they are able to exclude themselves from the very laws and policies they push. It is unethical. It is mafia tactics in a tailored suit.
Play devils advocate somewhere else. And unless youre one of them, why dont you wake the heck up!!!

Anonymous Coward says:


While good in principle I wonder about the costs of such an approach. Since businesses are harder to avoid than religion. Whenever the government needs to buy something it unavoidably leads to an interaction with businesses.

There is a ‘radical’ version where the government independently creates their own supply chain for everything and be unable to sell only give away excess in appropriate ways to prevent the government productions from being a business. Said system would be highly inefficient if corruption resistant. Full version with separation resulting in not being able to tax or regulate businesses however would clearly be nonviable.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...