The discussion revolves around the composition of Bush's Cabinet, particularly the presence of members with corporate backgrounds in the oil, energy, and mining sectors. Participants explore the implications of having corporate leaders in government, touching on themes of deregulation, conflicts of interest, and the potential benefits and drawbacks of such appointments.
Participants do not reach a consensus; there are multiple competing views regarding the role of corporate leaders in government and the implications of their appointments. Some advocate for the benefits of corporate experience, while others emphasize the risks associated with potential conflicts of interest and deregulation.
The discussion reflects a variety of assumptions about the motivations of corporate leaders and the nature of political service, with no resolution on the validity of these assumptions or their implications for governance.
Having corporate leaders in government is far better than having career politicians. I highly recommend Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders."Originally posted by Adam
Members of Bush's Cabinet, all from big oil and energy and mining? You bet.]
Pointing us towards fiction, huh? LOL, ok, it can't be any worse than the fiction that is modern politics!Originally posted by russ_watters
Having corporate leaders in government is far better than having career politicians. I highly recommend Tom Clancy's "Executive Orders."
Originally posted by Dave
Would it be fair to not let people with corporate connections be President? I mean, a lot of the corporate skills could overlap with the Presidential ones?
Originally posted by Zero
Is it fair to appoint someone to run an agency for the benefit of the people, when it is in his financial interests to run it into the ground instead?
Hehe. You serious? I guess you probably are.Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
...Clinton... because it was in the best interest of the country to do so. Few men are as devoted to principle.
Having corporate leaders in government is not the best thing in the world, because the first thing they push for is deregulation, which inevitably leads to trouble.
as Adam said, then they would probably be good choices in this time period for two reasons. 1) They have experience running such large companies that they would probably be better off helping run a country than some senator that at most has represented his/her state and never had any real experience running a country or business.all from big oil and energy and mining
Big oil CEOS are big oil CEOs because they were cutthroat and maximized profits for their own business, regardless of how their actions affect others.