How do factors related to geography (space/region), politics (power/dominations), economics (money/profit), institutions, culture, and/or the environment play a role in Parker's analysis of the role of the US in the reading?
As mentioned in class with the Parker reading on oil companies, the industrial location and profit is key when it comes to corporate America to have a booming business. No matter how harmful or dangerous the location is, having an oil company that can make an industry money, will always prevail over the safety of its civilians. Just marking territory in other countries, even, and claiming it as their own is a top priority for the corporation. They’re taking advantage of the post war Saudi Arabian community by benefiting themselves and their business. By any means necessary, these companies will advertise themselves as beneficial as talked about in Parker’s article, they want a placeholder for their oil companies and pass themselves off as a partnership. The more places they can reach, the better. This yields to more recognition, power, money and culture takeover. In regards to politics, the power complex of the government and their partnership with giant corporations is to make themselves more marketable just to be seen and perceived as far more superior than competing companies and countries of the like. For example, the US vs Britain’s oil companies compete over where they are and how much revenue they can make over the other as a way to claim dominance. For the economics side just owning the property in wherever place will give them money, say if citizens in that area wanted to simply live, as in live near that area of their factories and industries, they likely have to pay them money for subsequently being on their property and using up any land that otherwise could be theirs to expand.
The government in the US is easily bought by corporations because they put funding into political campaigns. Therefore, politics play a vital role in corporate America, and with that, the government officials become sellouts for the sole purpose of profit. They can and will put big factories to feed consumerism in neighborhoods just so that nearby citizens feel obligated to work there. Is it “creating jobs” like they claim? In my opinion, it seems like that at surface value, however it’s manipulating the working class because the money circles back to them for their business, and they simply profit off the workers, even if the people are put in danger they are forced to work where they are. This same concept even goes for something as simple as smoking, cigarette companies will mainly advertise to low income communities to continuously make money off of them, while they get an addiction. According to the Truth Initiative, blue collar workers are more likely to smoke tobacco and get lung cancer simply because they don’t have the resources to stop, and the information of the dangers of smoking: “Individuals who live in low-income communities have the least information about the health hazards of smoking, the fewest resources and social supports, and often the least access to services to help them quit. On top of that, as the above examples illustrate, the tobacco industry has a long history of targeting low-income communities (Truth Initiative).” This is simply a facet to consumerism overpowering the government. They don’t care about their people, just their profit. I think it’s absolutely horrendous that this happens in our government, in any platform, it seems to be the same thing repeatedly.