It oftentimes seems to me that there's a vast conspiracy between free market dogmatists and left-wing anti-capitalists to massively overstate the power of large business corporations vis-a-vis nation-states. That's not to deny that large corporations have a lot of power, but merely to observe that non-dysfunctional states have a ton of power. I mean, is it really credible to argue that the CEO of Sara Lee is more powerful than the head of the Congress Party in India? India has nuclear weapons and over 1 billion residents. Sara Lee has . . . tasty dessert products.
« Ooops, We Did It Again | Main | Sowing Confusion »
Who's Got The Power?
01 Sep 2006 01:09 pm
Comments (24)
" tasty desert products."
I guess that was one of the advantages of having an editor over at the Prospect. As teofilo noted, India also has deserts. Sara Lee, though, is much more noted for its desserts. And justly so.
Matt,
Can you do something about that font? Am I the only one who finds it diffcult to read?
My question is, how much power does the head of the Congress Party have? Since it's a parliamentary system, I presume she has more power than, say, the head of the Republican National Committee here, right? (IIRC, she was potentially going to be the Prime Minister when Congress Party got elected, except that Indians figured out that they wanted an Indian to run the country, not an Italian.)
desert/dessert - funny, but not really up there with MY's best. An extra bonus of his move to a single blog is that we get more unedited posts, which should make for more unintended hilarity.
BTW - does the "Remember info" check box work for other people? It doesn't for me.
I'm going to address the font next week...many complaints...considering alternatives. My tech guy's on a plane at the moment.
The "remember info" box isn't working for me either. I've had the same problem at zunta since they did their redesign.
Yes "non-dysfunctional states have a ton of power", but a lot of that power is unduly influenced by large corporations, so it's a distinction without a difference. From closed-door back room energy policy, to foreign policy that conveniently enriches well-connected military industrial corporations. You don't have to be a left wing anti-capitalist to see how the k-street bread is buttered. And I'd argue that the CEO's of certain non-dessert sector Fortune 500 companies do have a lot more say in how your tax dollars get spent than does your typical Democratic congressman.
Desserts alone certainly are less powerful than the Congress Party. Add in smoked meat, seamless underpants, and "Innovative, quality shoecare" and the rank is completely justified.
Agreed on this. What's especially annoying is all the executive vice presidents - is an executive vice president of Hewlett-Packard really more powerful than the prime minister of New Zealand or Queen Elizabeth II?
I'd add, er, how on earth is Laura Bush more powerful than the Queen?
Can you do something about that font? Am I the only one who finds it diffcult to read?
I find serifs easier to read myself. But even just increasing the leading a tad and sticking with this font would make things a lot more legible. Otherwise a nice design IMO -- clean, simple, good colors, no BS, just what you need.
There you go, doing the triangulation waltz, gratuitously planting yourself in the middle between anonymous “free-market dogmatists” and anonymous “left-wing anti-capitalists.”
And why all the fuss? Any sensible reading of the Forbes ranking that you link to should indicate immediately that it is a nonsensical comparison of apples and oranges.
Sonia Gandhi does sadly rule India in a de facto manner since the Prime Minister is her appointee and serves at her pleasure. Manmohan Singh has no independent power base and most major decisions are taken by her office according to the Indian press at least (though most of the English-speaking press is more positive about SG than the median newspaper I believe). She was in fact offered the official job of PM with even opponents like Sharad Pawar agreeing to her holding it but turned it down for unclear reasons...
This is silly: economic power can trump or bribe political power, I am sure Sara Lee, if it really wanted, could buy the Congress Party leaders (maybe to strew deserts with desserts?). Look at all those politicians that have been bought just in the US thanks to DeLay...
Changing the font is appeasing the blogofascists. Next I suppose we'll be seeing pictures of your cat.
Well said, Matt. States (generally) have a unique claim to the legitimate use of force, and states enforce the property rights necessary for corporations to even exist.
Also, figures like those from the Institute for Policy Studies about so many of the world's largest economies being corporations, which were favorite references a few years ago, simply exaggerate the relative size of corporations compared to nations by way of duplicate accounting. That is, the value added of nations (gross output minus intermediate inputs) are compared to the *total sales* of corporations (gross output). If you could claim as your own all the work that you've paid someone else to do, you would be a demi-god among mere mortals, too.
That list was remarkably loopy even by the standards of such lists. I guess powerful has come to mean "kewl" for the media listmakers. So I dunno if the list is so much an example of that tndency. Whenwego is, though.
Matt, are you going to adress the "design is ass ugly" issue too?
"Matt, are you going to adress the "design is ass ugly" issue too?"
I would like to sign your petition, sir.
The list is certainly bizarre, and if vik's assertions about Ghandi are correct, then she is clearly at least number 2, but I'm just not sure where Rice goes, because I have no idea how much actual power she has. If anyone can tell me of an instance where she has served as more than a placeholder for the status quo, I'd love to hear it.
I don't know how much she influences what passes for thinking in the Bush administration, but I really haven't seen any evidence of influence on the world stage.
Finally, Oprah should be higher. She has a lot of influence in this country, not just on things like book sales, but the way people think about things.
Better question. Who has bigger chops, the head of the Congress Party or the head of Pepsi? BTW what the heck are chops anyway? Can girls get them? Do they want them?
Last year's edition of this annoyed me by ranking Meg Whitman of EBay well above Patricia Russo, the CEO of Lucent. I mean, EBay is nice-to-have, but if there was no EBay there would be QXL or Ricardo or *enter dot.com casualty auction site*.
But Lucent - Bell Labs! - is very different. They route, therefore you are.
Come on, are you telling me that the Congress Party is more powerful than Sara Lee with its hideous transfats? Years from now, we'll be looking at an Indian nation with sixty-five percent obesity and wondering, why the party didn't stop this insidious malfeasance by a western corporation.
Better question. Who has bigger chops, the head of the Congress Party or the head of Pepsi? BTW what the heck are chops anyway? Can girls get them? Do they want them?
Yes, girls can have them. Chops refers to the jaw or mouth--specifically, in the sense you're using it, it comes from using the proper technique of the mouth or jaw to play a wind or brass instrument, which then broadens out to being used to refer to musical technique/skill more generally. I don't know that talking about who has "bigger chops" makes that much sense, though. Size does matter, boys, but not for everything.
Comments closed September 15, 2006.
| 
Heads in the Sand
India also has deserts.
Keep in mind, though, that Sonia Gandhi is President of the Congress Party, not Prime Minister of India; that's Manmohan Singh. So she doesn't actually control the country, just the party (which, granted, is in charge of the country).
Posted by teofilo | September 1, 2006 1:17 PM