Responding to Paul Krugman's post, I wrote the following:
People avoid the analysis of motives, at times calling it paranoid, but in fact it is essential. Why would anyone be surprised that politicians are influenced their donors income interests, let alone their own.
A VP starting a war claims security reasons, but would you ignore that the company he was the CEO of will increase its revenue, making him millions? Obama is beholden to the big-money interests, and seems to have done well fund raising. Does anyone need to be told that some of his 'donors' are benefitting from the crisis.
The absurd irrationality of policy decisions would indicate that reason is not the driving motive, but the interests of the powerful and the wealthy.
People avoid the analysis of motives, at times calling it paranoid, but in fact it is essential. Why would anyone be surprised that politicians are influenced their donors income interests, let alone their own.
A VP starting a war claims security reasons, but would you ignore that the company he was the CEO of will increase its revenue, making him millions? Obama is beholden to the big-money interests, and seems to have done well fund raising. Does anyone need to be told that some of his 'donors' are benefitting from the crisis.
The absurd irrationality of policy decisions would indicate that reason is not the driving motive, but the interests of the powerful and the wealthy.
Comments