大型企業(yè)是如何接管西方的政府的？
How big corporations took over Western governments
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：大公司有錢，政府有權(quán)。金錢和權(quán)力互相勾結(jié)，以獲得更多金錢和權(quán)力。公眾在民主和權(quán)利的幻想下吃著面包和看馬戲表演。
正文翻譯
大型企業(yè)是如何接管西方的政府的？
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 9 )
收藏
The big corporations have the money, govt has the power. Money & power scratch each other's backs to gain more money & more power. In the meantime the public is fed bread & circuses and kept in line under the illusion of democracy and rights.
大公司有錢，政府有權(quán)。金錢和權(quán)力互相勾結(jié)，以獲得更多金錢和權(quán)力。公眾在民主和權(quán)利的幻想下吃著面包和看馬戲表演。
These CEO;s and Board of Directors gives themselves 10s of millions of dollars in raises and bonuses then blame their minimual wage employees for the collaps of their companies. Its like Bankers blaming their janitors and maids for the Banking Crisis.
這些首席執(zhí)行官和董事會給自己數(shù)千萬美元的加薪和獎金，然后把公司的倒閉歸咎于他們的最低工資的員工，就像銀行家把銀行危機(jī)的責(zé)任歸咎于看門人和女傭一樣。
I was telling my friends this during the 1990's decade. They all said I was crazy, and it just couldn't happen in America. Now, they are eating their words and experiencing KARMA. We are now in a very feudalist fascist system for several generations.
上世紀(jì) 90 年代，我曾跟朋友們說過這件事。他們都說我瘋了，這不可能在美國發(fā)生?，F(xiàn)在，他們正在自食其言，經(jīng)歷著報應(yīng)。我們現(xiàn)在幾代人都處在一個非常封建的法西斯體系中。
No water supply , no electrical supply should be privatized!! No food must be kept from the people who need good! No housing shelter should be kept from the people !! Food , clean drinking water , shelter clothes need to be a BIRTHRIGHT !!
任何供水、供電都不應(yīng)私有化??！不能讓需要食物的人得不到食物！不應(yīng)該讓需要住房的人得不到住房?。?！食物、清潔的飲用水、住房和衣服必須是與生俱來的權(quán)利??！
Grace Blakeley has recently written a great book about this topic called "Vulture Capitalism" and I highly recommend it. The term "regulatory capture" is wholly inadequate in describing what has actually taken place.
The laws of incorporation that were passed in 1863 put the US government squarely in the pocket of bankers and robber barrons. Even FDR, the "savior" didn't take the power to print free money from bankers. Printing unlimited money allows you to purchase unlimited power and influence. We all live in the results of that.
格蕾絲-布萊克利（Grace Blakeley）最近寫了一本關(guān)于這一主題的好書，名為《禿鷲資本主義》，我強(qiáng)烈推薦這本書?！氨O(jiān)管俘獲”一詞完全不足以描述實際發(fā)生的情況。
1863年通過的公司法將美國政府完全置于銀行家和強(qiáng)盜大亨的口袋中，即使是“救世主”羅斯福也沒有從銀行家手中奪走免費(fèi)印鈔的權(quán)力。印制無限的鈔票可以購買無限的權(quán)力和影響力，我們都生活在這樣的結(jié)果之中。
Neoliberalism isn't "market" fundamentalism, because corporate players try to escape market discipline at every opportunity. It is "private investment and profit fundamentalism" or "capitalist fundamentalism" or "corporate fundamentalism".
新自由主義并不是“市場”原教旨主義，因為企業(yè)主一有機(jī)會就會試圖逃避市場約束。它是“私人投資和利潤原教旨主義”或“資本主義原教旨主義”或“企業(yè)原教旨主義”。
One of my seventh grade teachers, who taught civics, required our class to watch Reagan's inauguration in the classroom on January 20, 1981. So I saw him say "government is the problem" in real time. Even then, I didn't like him at all. I liked the idea that the government could help people in need. Our teacher loudly cheered him on from behind her desk. My generation turned out to be very conservative and reactionary, and pro-neoliberal, for the most part.
1981 年 1 月 20 日，我七年級時的一位教公民學(xué)的老師要求我們?nèi)嗤瑢W(xué)在教室里觀看里根的就職典禮。因此，我親眼看到他說“政府是問題所在”。即便如此，我還是一點(diǎn)也不喜歡他，因為我喜歡政府能夠幫助需要幫助的人的想法。我們的老師在課桌后面為他大聲喝彩，我們這一代人變得非常保守和反動，大部分人都支持新自由主義。
I feel like I'm getting a minor in geopolitical economics, one hour at a time. This is extremely valuable subject matter in terms of understanding the economic forces at work in the world, who benefits- and who loses.
我覺得我正在輔修地緣政治經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，每次一小時。就了解世界上的經(jīng)濟(jì)力量、誰受益、誰受損而言，這是非常有價值的課題。
I hate corporations literally making the lives of the masses miserable. It is focusing on profits than pursuing the general welfare of the people thar really make me angry and sad whenever I see homeless and old people begging alms just to buy food for their immediate medical issues.
Almost every day I see this here in the Philippines. Water, electric and telecommunications utilities getting more expensive. Most of all you cannot afford to get sick here because hospitals are mostly privately owned. If you don't have money for down payment for immediate medical attention then you die or your medical conditions worsen.
我討厭那些讓大眾生活痛苦的公司。每當(dāng)我看到無家可歸者和老人乞求施舍，只為購買食物以解決燃眉之急時，我都會感到憤怒和悲傷。
在菲律賓，我?guī)缀趺刻於寄芸吹竭@種情況。水費(fèi)、電費(fèi)和電信費(fèi)越來越貴。最重要的是你在這里生不起病，因為醫(yī)院大多是私人所有。如果你沒錢支付首付，無法立即就醫(yī)，你就會死亡或病情惡化。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
You are absolutely right about the definition of liberalism. I didn't learn the true definition of liberalism until I took a government class during my doctoral studies. I was so shocked. Liberalism coincides with Libertarians.
關(guān)于自由主義的定義，你說得非常對。我在攻讀博士學(xué)位期間選修了一門政府課，才知道自由主義的真正定義。我感到非常震驚。自由主義與自由意志主義者是一致的。
It’s a FEATURE of capitalism, not an anomaly. This is unavoidable when individuals and corporations have the money and the connections to exert constant pressure using both carrots and sticks as the tools crush resistance.
這是資本主義的一個特征，而不是異?，F(xiàn)象。當(dāng)個人和企業(yè)擁有足夠的資金和人脈，可以利用胡蘿卜和大棒作為壓制反抗的工具不斷施加壓力時，這種情況是不可避免的。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I have learned a lot from this Ben Norton & Radhika video by seing this doctrine changing its fancy names while its purpose remained constant: stealing from the working class.Amazing.
我從本-諾頓和拉迪卡的這段視頻中學(xué)到了很多東西，我看到這個學(xué)說不斷變換著花哨的名字，而它的目的卻始終如一：從工人階級那里竊取利益。
The government also extended the right for corporations to have privatized military forces
Any conflict with those privatized military forces is also by decree considered a direct attack against the United States
政府還擴(kuò)大了企業(yè)擁有私有化軍隊的權(quán)利。
任何與這些私有化軍隊的沖突也被法令視為對美國的直接攻擊。
I thought I had learned economics. But I had actually been spoon fed an ideology - thanks to Ben, Radhika (and Michael) for all of your work. You have freed my mind from the shackles of propagandized junk economics. Now I am making connections and seeing the world as I have never seen it before. It's quite destabilizing but I would rather know the truth of things. Keep up the outstanding work.
我以為我已經(jīng)學(xué)會了經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)，但實際上我被灌輸了一種意識形態(tài)--感謝本、拉迪卡（和邁克爾）所做的一切，你們讓我的思想擺脫了垃圾經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)宣傳的束縛?，F(xiàn)在，我正在建立聯(lián)系，看到我從未見過的世界。雖然這很不穩(wěn)定，但我寧愿知道事情的真相。請繼續(xù)保持出色的工作。
Greed and personal gain are opposite to social responsibility. How could people actually fool themselves into believing that corporations ,whose sole motive for existence is to MAKE PROFIT, would care about social responsibility. ?? Makes as much sense as “self regulation” of industry.
貪婪和個人利益與社會責(zé)任背道而馳。人們怎么能自欺欺人地相信以盈利為唯一存在動機(jī)的企業(yè)會關(guān)心社會責(zé)任呢？這和“行業(yè)自律”的道理是一樣的。
The corporations are global and they are calling the shots in US and in many places around the world. Countries are tied to each other and have become quite interdependent. This is how I think of globalization. This is the environment I think we have to consider when we make assessments about reality today.
這些公司都是全球性的，它們在美國和世界許多地方都發(fā)號施令。各國相互聯(lián)系，相互依存，這就是我對全球化的看法。我認(rèn)為這是我認(rèn)為我們在評估當(dāng)今現(xiàn)實時必須考慮的環(huán)境。
Good discussion.
In neoliberal countries the state is so weakend that its only tools are tariffs and subsidies. Hence, as Radhika points out, it ends up being a version of neoliberal economy where the biggest customer is the state, to privatly owned corporations. Futhermore many of the subsides invesments into "green" economy/energy will be far from econoical and benifital to the broader populous...will end up being very expensive. But the investment class is have a party...
討論得很好。
在新自由主義國家，國家的力量非常薄弱，其唯一的工具就是關(guān)稅和補(bǔ)貼。因此，正如 Radhika 指出的那樣，新自由主義經(jīng)濟(jì)的最大客戶是國家而不是私有企業(yè)。此外，許多對“綠色”經(jīng)濟(jì)/能源的補(bǔ)貼投資將遠(yuǎn)非經(jīng)濟(jì)和有益于廣大民眾......最終將非常昂貴。不過，投資階層正在狂歡......
Thank you for explaining Liberalism. I probably should've done research on this word that causes so much friction and confusion, but now I see it for what it is--just another trap for the average worker fall into. For those of us who do real work and don't earn passive income there's no point in participating in Their capitalist system as it only serves Them (the few) and having served this class my whole life, I've nothing to show for it but worn out joints and a depressed bank account.
謝謝你對自由主義的解釋。我也許應(yīng)該研究一下這個會引起這么多摩擦和混亂的詞，但現(xiàn)在我看清了它的真面目--只是普通工人掉進(jìn)的另一個陷阱。對于我們這些從事實際工作、不賺取被動收入的人來說，參與資本主義體系毫無意義，因為它只為他們（少數(shù)人）服務(wù)，而我一輩子都在為這個階層服務(wù)，除了關(guān)節(jié)磨損和銀行賬戶縮水之外，我一無所獲。
It’s very dangerous to privatize fundamental things. Food source, electricity and water. It’s like privatizing the air we breathe. I’m for privatization but not natural fundamental to survive that sustain life.
Are going to say oh you won’t drink unless you pay for the water?;(
把基本的東西（如食物來源、電力和水）私有化是非常危險的，這就像把我們呼吸的空氣私有化一樣。雖然我支持私有化，但不支持將維持生命的自然基本要素私有化。
難道你想說除非你花錢買水，否則你就不能喝水嗎？
You don't need an Oxford degree to understand that if you mindlessly give away money for ten years, encouraging people to go into debt, and then suddenly do the exact opposite, the country will go into disarray.
你不需要牛津大學(xué)的學(xué)位就能明白如果你連續(xù)十年無意識地發(fā)錢，鼓勵人們負(fù)債，然后又突然反其道而行之，國家就會陷入混亂。
@泰久山田-b5b
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
羅納德-里根為了解決美國的貿(mào)易赤字，對日本征收關(guān)稅并推行《廣場協(xié)議》。這樣一來，日本賺取的美元價值就降到了以前的一半以下。
Globalisation in Australia brought Americans owning more than 50% of our largest corporations, including all the banks and mining. Large amounts of retail and infrastructure. Most of the bureaucracy has been contracted out to large consultancy companies like pwc, Deloitte and kpmg. America owns our means of production
在澳大利亞，全球化讓美國人擁有了超過50%的大型企業(yè)，包括所有的銀行和礦業(yè)。大量零售業(yè)和基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施也是如此。大部分官僚機(jī)構(gòu)都外包給了普華永道、德勤和KPMG等大型咨詢公司。美國擁有我們的生產(chǎn)資料。
I'm so happy i chose China as my country to work in when i decided to leave my home country 11 years ago. Something in my fate sent me to the right place for these historic times we are living through.
我很高興11 年前當(dāng)我決定離開家鄉(xiāng)時，我選擇了中國作為我工作的國家。在我們所經(jīng)歷的這個歷史性時代，我的命運(yùn)把我送到了正確的地方。
Desai is superb. She maintains a strong Marxist underpinning in all of her analysis, which allows her to penetrate the myths of neoliberalism, anti socialism, etc., and cut through to the essence of the class character of the contemporary socio-political world.
Desai非常出色。她的所有分析都以馬克思主義為基礎(chǔ)，這讓她能夠穿透新自由主義、反社會主義等神話，直指當(dāng)代社會政治世界的階級特性本質(zhì)。
This makes me think of Gavin Newson and his folks dining at the French Laundry when everybody else in the world was under quarantine. That was about the same time he was getting huge PPP loans for his winery etc. while old people and children alike were piled up in hospitals suffocating on their own mucus.
這讓我想起加文-紐森（Gavin Newson）和他的家人在法國洗衣店（French Laundry）用餐的情景，當(dāng)時世界上所有人都被隔離了。就在同一時間，他的酒莊等獲得了巨額 PPP 貸款，而老人和孩子們卻被自己的粘液憋死在醫(yī)院里。
How do we bring about real change on the ground rather than just watch YouTube Webinars and keep analyzing the system...where is Real Change happening?? In India Capitalism is brazen.
我們該如何在當(dāng)?shù)貙崿F(xiàn)真正的變革，而不僅僅是觀看 YouTube 網(wǎng)絡(luò)研討會和不斷分析系統(tǒng)......真正的變革發(fā)生在哪里？在印度，資本主義肆無忌憚。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power".
April 29, 1938, Franklin D. Roosevelt
“如果人民容忍私人權(quán)力增長到比民主國家本身還要強(qiáng)大的地步，那么民主國家的自由就是不安全的。從本質(zhì)上講，這就是法西斯主義--個人、團(tuán)體或任何其他控制性私人勢力擁有政府"。
1938 年 4 月 29 日，富蘭克林-羅斯福
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Only one detail of precision for this excellent report: before the neoliberalism was implemented in USA and UK by Reagan and Thatcher, in the 1980s, neoliberalism was rehearsed —imposed by force by Washington and the transnational Western oligarchy, using the CIA for preparation operations— in Chile from September 1973 with the military coup d’état against democratic socialist president Salvador Allende where, locally, general Augusto Pinochet and a military junta took the power bombing the government palace and assassinating Allende (who’s said that committed suicide, but in fact was assassinated and then his body set up to pretend suicide ). The Chilean military dictatorship implemented all the points included in the Washington Consensus about 7 years before this oligarchic model was implemented in US, UK and from there in all the rest of the “Western world”.
這份出色的報告只有一個細(xì)節(jié)是精確的：在里根和撒切爾于 20 世紀(jì) 80 年代在美國和英國推行新自由主義之前，新自由主義就已經(jīng)在智利演練過了--從 1973 年 9 月針對民主社會主義總統(tǒng)薩爾瓦多-阿連德的軍事政變開始，華盛頓和跨國西方寡頭集團(tuán)通過武力強(qiáng)加給智利，并利用中央情報局開展準(zhǔn)備行動。在當(dāng)?shù)?，奧古斯托-皮諾切特將軍和軍政府奪取了政權(quán)，炸毀了政府宮殿，暗殺了阿連德（據(jù)說他是自殺的，但實際上是被暗殺的，然后他的尸體被擺放起來假裝自殺）。智利軍事DC政權(quán)實施了“華盛頓共識”中的所有要點(diǎn)，比美國、英國以及“西方世界”其他國家實施這種寡頭模式早了大約 7 年。
Big corpotations require a formal charter from government in order to operate. The companies must state their business activities. If it turns out that corporations are taking over functions of government, which undermines self-determination, and changes the form of government de facto, then obviously this is not authorized in their corporate charters, which can be yanked to shut them down and prohibit them from operating outside their charters.
大公司需要政府的正式特許才能運(yùn)營。公司必須說明其業(yè)務(wù)活動。如果事實證明公司正在接管政府職能，從而破壞了自決并在事實上改變了政府的形式，那么這顯然不是其公司章程所允許的，可以撤銷公司章程，讓其停業(yè)，并禁止其在章程之外開展業(yè)務(wù)。
if Education is not affordable in a country, if Health Care is expensive, and your basic need also expensive such as electricity, water, food ect, a state owned company now owned by private, that's the sign that a Country had been taken over by Corporations and the irony is this case happened in Developed country like in most Western country and in asia Japan also have this problem i think
如果一個國家的教育負(fù)擔(dān)不起，如果醫(yī)療保健昂貴，如果你的基本需求（如電、水、食物等）也很昂貴，如果國有企業(yè)現(xiàn)在被私人擁有，這就是一個國家被企業(yè)接管的跡象。具有諷刺意味的是這種情況發(fā)生在發(fā)達(dá)國家，如大多數(shù)西方國家，而在亞洲，我認(rèn)為日本也存在這個問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
You just described the Australian Government all sides! We are no longer the “Lucky Country” we are “the Lobby Country” We have common law and statue law law we move further and further from common law too legislative law! That’s because our parliament only makes laws for politicians!
你剛才描述了澳大利亞政府的方方面面！我們不再是“幸運(yùn)之國”，我們是“游說之國”，我們有普通法和成文法，但我們離普通法和立法法越來越遠(yuǎn)！這是因為我們的議會只為政客制定法律！
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://m.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Reforming the banking sector and financial market in advanced economy is prerequisite for exerting some sorts of control over these neoliberal tactics. what has just happened in gold market in Vietnam over the past few months would give you a nice demonstrations of this. Essentially, the government has to ultimately sell its gold reserve at specific prices via state owned banks to bring down gold prices, after so many attempts at "market mechanisms" have failed (the lies by the capitalist class are so overwhealming).
改革發(fā)達(dá)經(jīng)濟(jì)體的銀行業(yè)和金融市場是對這些新自由主義策略進(jìn)行某種控制的先決條件。過去幾個月越南黃金市場發(fā)生的事情就是一個絕佳例證。本質(zhì)上，在多次“市場機(jī)制”嘗試失敗之后（資本家階級的謊言如此鋪天蓋地），政府最終不得不通過國有銀行以特定價格出售其黃金儲備以壓低金價。
Trickle-down economics refers to economic policies that disproportionately favor the upper tier of the economic spectrum, comprising wealthy individuals and large corporations. The policies are based on the idea that spending by this group will "trickle down" to those less fortunate in the form of stronger economic growth.[1] The term has been used broadly by critics of supply-side economics to refer to taxing and spending policies by governments that, intentionally or not, result in widening income inequality; it has also been used in critical references to neoliberalism.[2] Despite this, the term does not represent any cohesive economic theory.[3]
Ronald Reagan's economic policies, dubbed "Reaganomics" by opponents, included large tax cuts and were characterized as trickle-down economics. In this picture, he is outlining his plan for the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 from the Oval Office in a televised address, July 1981.
Since we are off the gold standard and printing money is off the charts, this theory is null and void because by the time the money gets to the poor people inflation already set in and thus the purchasing power is less.
涓滴經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)（Trickle-down Economics）是指過度偏向由富人和大公司組成的經(jīng)濟(jì)上層的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策。這一術(shù)語被供應(yīng)方經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)的批評者廣泛用于指政府有意或無意導(dǎo)致收入不平等擴(kuò)大的稅收和支出政策；它也被用于批評新自由主義。盡管如此，這一術(shù)語并不代表任何有凝聚力的經(jīng)濟(jì)理論。
羅納德-里根的經(jīng)濟(jì)政策被反對者稱為“里根經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)”，其中包括大規(guī)模減稅和涓滴經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)。照片中，1981年7月，里根在橢圓形辦公室發(fā)表電視講話，概述了他的 1981 年《經(jīng)濟(jì)復(fù)蘇稅收法案》（Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981）計劃。
由于我們已經(jīng)脫離了金本位制，印鈔機(jī)也在瘋狂地印鈔票，因此這一理論已經(jīng)失效，因為當(dāng)錢到達(dá)窮人手中時，通貨膨脹已經(jīng)開始了，因此購買力降低了。
Most people believe that money is real wealth. Yet, everything we spend money on requires energy to mine, create, deliver, run, maintain, and dispose of. In this way, money is ultimately a direct claim on energy and resources.
Our economic stories assert that with more money we can create more of anything. The truth is we cannot create energy. We both extract and burn it faster by using technology and printing money.
Natural capital -particularly energy-is the true foundation of our monetary systems. As we create more money we don’t create more resources, we merely access them faster.
大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為，金錢才是真正的財富。然而，我們花錢購買的一切都需要能源來開采、創(chuàng)造、交付、運(yùn)行、維護(hù)和處置。因此，金錢最終是對能源和資源的直接索取。
我們的經(jīng)濟(jì)故事斷言，只要有更多的錢，我們就能創(chuàng)造更多的東西。事實上，我們無法創(chuàng)造能源。通過使用技術(shù)和印鈔，我們可以更快地提取和燃燒能源。
自然資本--尤其是能源--是我們貨幣體系的真正基礎(chǔ)。當(dāng)我們創(chuàng)造出更多的貨幣時，我們并沒有創(chuàng)造出更多的資源，我們只是更快地獲取了這些資源。