Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
because, ace, the state and corporations on the scale of bp are aspects of the same system. they operate symbiotically. the maintain each other. this is reality. there is no opposition between the private sector and the state. never has been. the state developed as a mechanism for externalization of costs on the one side and production of consent on the other (a governor in the sense of something that limits how fast a motor can go on the one side, a system of social reproduction on the other).
it's about opinion management, really.
control the frame of reference people think through you control their world.
it's bad for bidness when capitalism fucks up so badly that it can't be fixed in an easy peasy way. it's bad for bidness when a crisis persists and the outlines of the actually existing order start to become obvious.
|
Again, regarding capitalism in this context, I don't get your point. When government and business collude to the detriment of the common good - that is not capitalism, this is more of a centralized command/control type system.
Also, government (Obama administration) has a "fall guy" in BP, or do they? Evidence is mounting that regulators simply failed. Doesn't this hurt the argument for more regulation, given regulators can not handle the responsibilities they currently have? Is the blame everything on BP routine wearing thin? Who is in charge? Who has been in charge from the beginning? Whose failures are really in question in terms of the response to the spill and clean up?
In my view, Obama has been getting a pass on this from the media, why? Are they starting to turn on him?