Is American foreign policy based on what's good for people, or what's good for corporations?

Question

As always, an evidence-based answer is preferred. Thank you.

Answer 1

Many times - but not always- what is good for corporations is also good for people. And vice versa.

Answer 2

Corporations are not people. Corporations are legal entities, but they are not people. What's good for a corporation is not necessarily good for people.

In the case of publicly traded corporations, what's good for investors is many times not good for people. We've all seen news about GM or Kodak or some other corporation enacting layoffs. What usually happens? The stock price goes up. How is this good for people -- particularly the people who work at the corporation?

In terms of foreign policy, I have yet to see any U.S. foreign policy in this administration that has been good for me or anyone else I know.

I do know of some corporations that have done quite well by the war on terror.

Answer 3

Hey, buddy! We go to war to make the world better for everyone. We go to war for our freedoms, damn it!

Or, perhaps there's another explanation.

After 33 years in the military, Major General Smedley Butler made the following speech in 1933:

“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I
believe, as something that is not what it seems to the
majority of people. Only a small inside group knows
what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of
the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and
nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight,
then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that
when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then
it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent.
Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers
follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect
some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only
two things we should fight for. One is the defense of
our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for
any other reason is simply a racket.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the
military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to
point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy
enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and
a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a
comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent
thirty- three years and four months in active military
service as a member of this country's most agile
military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all
commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to
Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of
my time being a high class muscle- man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In
short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time.
Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the
military profession, I never had a thought of my own
until I left the service. My mental faculties remained
in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of
higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the
military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for
American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti
and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank
boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of
half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is
long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international
banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I
brought light to the Dominican Republic for American
sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to
it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

During those years, I had, as the boys in the back
room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I
feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints.
The best he could do was to operate his racket in
three districts. I operated on three continents.”

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm

Answer 4

Well is the same question for American Domestic Policy...All policy uses a cause as a vale for payment for a campaign financier. War, Natural Disasters, Missions to Mars, Education, Children, and the Poor are the sell job to get the public to approve spending that will be funneled to a crownie. Both parties do it. The public needs to wake up to this fact.

Answer 5

Sort of echoing an earlier answer...why are the two choices mutually exclusive? If a policy, domestic or foreign, is good for a business, that means that the business is making more money (and presumably paying more taxes), hiring more people, etc..

Granted, this is not always the case, but it is not always an either/or as well.

Answer 6

IMHO...

Some of both. Corporations do hold a mighty financial arm to use. But, if there's enough outcry over a particular policy, it gets changed.

Example
The original Lautenberg Bill, which was enacted under Bill Clinton, made it illegal to pay known criminals for information in other countries. This was under direct community pressure from Mr. Lautenberg's constituency, which happened to be Peruvian (I believe - maybe Colombian), and they didn't want thugs who'd threatened and kills friends and relatives to benefit.

Answer 7

Since so many corporations are outsourcing now to other countries, I would say it's benefiting corporations and not Americans.

Answer 8

Ask the Jews
http://www.adl.org/main_Holocaust/default.htm
Ask South Korea
http://www.koreanwar.org/
Ask the WORLD who fed there people after Germany was defeated....
http://www.earthlypursuits.com/WarGarV/WarGard13.htm
Ask India after the tsunami
and I could go on
Then question the US and what good it has done for the people of the world

Answer 9

Foreign policy is based on what is best for the country as a whole, which is a strong economy. Sorry, but individual welfare isn't a consideration.

Answer 10

I believe in trickle down economics so yes I believe what is good for corporations is good for the people. Atleast it is here where I work.