by
BelaynehKassaWubie | June 25, 2010 at 09:45 am
129 views | 2 Recommendations |
3 comments
I listen from individuals that America is connoted as corporate America. That is, who the USA president can be is determined by the will and interests of owners of corporations in advance and, even after election, the president’s existence is determined by them. Is this really the situation?
It is true that corporation owners can play big role for the success of a candidate competing for USA presidential election through their money. They may buy voters (though cannot buy consciousness), promote the candidate investing huge funds of promotion, etc. But the allegation that corporation owners can use hidden (may be forced pressure) means to choose the president they want seems unrealistic.
Defining America as corporate America may rather be true in context that most of the competing presidential candidates from the Republic favour and address the interests of shareholders of corporations rather than the lower and middle class majorities. Currently, however, President Barak Obama seems to have changed the smell of corporate America to State America. Is that not?
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (3)
at 13:04 on June 25th, 2010
If there is no Gross Domestic Product, and if a nation has nothing that it does better than any other, then they and their people are doomed to stagnation or worse for all of their lives. Being corporate as in being commercially viable is not an evil, it is a necessity to advance the world population.
YnakeeJim
at 21:32 on June 25th, 2010
In my view being corporate is like being a trade union. This does not give consideration to the majority.
To be corporate is asocial and amoral in my view. Obama is right to get the Wall Street Bill approved as that was asocial or affecting the majority by the few greedies!
at 23:21 on June 25th, 2010
BelaynehKassaWubie
Do you have access to capital?