Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
No.
However, everything in politics is about money.
Since politics is merely the means for social creatures, like humans, to engage with other humans, then if money is all politics concerns (a claim I would argue is false.. "politics" has other arenas besides the popular governmental considerations where rent seeking and lobbying and rates of taxation are the key players), then by this definition all life concerns money.
Fortunately politics does not simply concern itself with money. "… consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy" – A political unit, such as it is, can be a family, an office, or a country, and in each division it is possible for their decisions to be made with the focus less on financial concerns. See: War, Iraq/Afghanistan/on terror/on drugs for examples even at the state political level. Cost-benefit considerations have had little bearing on whether people support (or oppose) such endeavours. I should know because I've been arguing against all such methods precisely because they all fail the cost-benefit test.
If everything in YOUR life is all about money . . . As you seem to be saying in your ramblings, above . . . then you have a sad existence indeed.
If politics isn't all about money these days, then why do our currant batch of politicos keep voting themselves ridiculous pay raises and privileges?
My life has never been all about money, nor will it ever be.
No… my point was that you indicated that politics is all about money by saying "everything in politics is about money". And I find that point to be ridiculous because it clearly misses a great deal of what "politics" is. Since you didn't read, I will repeat it.
"Politics consists of "social relations involving authority or power" and refers to the regulation of public affairs within a political unit, and to the methods and tactics used to formulate and apply policy"
What exactly do you suppose different people are doing when they make decisions among a group? How exactly is that any different than what politicians do (or what people who vote for them) when they squabble over things?
To your "point", a) they haven't voted themselves any pay raises. You might want to read the constitution some time. There's a constitutional amendment preventing it. At least at the federal level dealing with the politicians directly (the fact that there's such high incumbency rates is a different matter that is best blamed on the voters for using simple party based heuristics and generally being uniformed and not on the politicians). Kind of recent, so perhaps you missed it in your rudimentary civics course back in the day, but I'd say that makes the "current batch" a little less likely than the politicians you grew up with from skimming more off the top for themselves. There's also a federal pay freeze in effect for federal workers. This was… rather unpopular with those federal workers. I said too bad but tough cookies to the many who live around me (I'm right next to an AF base). You apparently never even noticed.
b) Aside from passing more laws that they are often exempt from you mean? Civil liberties violations for insistence (in what way does that present a "monetary" advantage, less time loss dealing with police or investigations?). What sort of "privileges", of a specifically monetary value, do you presume that they have that we as citizens lack?
A story. In the 1940s, America used price controls and rationing on food. Congress was asked one day if it should not give up its privileged access to some particular types of food in this case, a white bean used in soup. A few Congressmen threw a fit and that soup was available every day without further debate or scrutiny even though most Americans who wanted and could afford it couldn't get enough such beans for their own personal use.
Now. Because of the rations and price controls in play, there wasn't any real money involved in it being available or unavailable (in theory, in practice, the black market made a lot available, particular gasoline, that wasn't supposed to be, at higher prices). What it was about was the exercise of POWER and CONTROL. That it involves money is incidental to the question of authority. The parallel to this story is that in Allied occupied Germany, as soon as they were able, the Germans eliminated most of the price controls and rationing that the Allies insisted that they needed to re-build. The power/control went away and most goods were "magically" available for sale instead of being horded and saved because of the pathetic prices the Allied government allowed them to charge.
Politics is always about power, and who gets to exercise it. Money is merely a means of expressing or acquiring power. If you're getting hung up on the money part of the story you're losing most of the picture. This would be like staring at Mona Lisa to look at her clothes or hands and completely ignoring her face.
Bonus moral: we still have price controls on some kinds of food, if indirectly through agricultural subsidies (and in the case of corn, ethanol subsidies). If you want to complain about politicians, that's one place to start, though in practice.. they're only doing what a plurality of the public still wants them to do. As always, the best place to focus your ire when concerning politics is the voting public and its general ignorance.
Some bonds give the holder the right to force the issuer to repay the bond before the maturity date on the put dates; see put option. These are referred to as retractable or putable bonds.