[Zipperfish]

Thanos wrote:

D

I'd like to see the day come when this sort of greed is finally seen for the sociopathic mental illness that it actually is. But that day won't come in my lifetime, nor for a thousand generations after my time on this earth is concluded. That the very worst among us will always rise to the top is as unbreakable a rule as is the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Word. Not getting no rep from me though!!!!!

[Thanos]

^

Last one across the 700 mark is a yearbook editor!

That means you!

[peck420]

Direct democracy would remove the rights of the average citizen faster than communism, capitalism, and corporatism ever could.

Why? Individually we can be intelligent, in groups we are dumber than rocks.

All three of the previously mentioned at least have some safe guards that are hard to change or remove. Direct democracy would not.

Second, why would there ever be a vote on a corporation moving a manufacturing facility? It is the corporations property, not mine, not yours, only the corporation.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 wrote:

Second, why would there ever be a vote on a corporation moving a manufacturing facility? It is the corporations property, not mine, not yours, only the corporation.

Public corporations belong to the shareholders, and shareholders get to vote on the corpations' policies.

[peck420]

I understand the shareholders voting, I am asking why joe public should have the right to vote on it.

Or did I completely misread that post?

Just reread Thanos' post, he states quite clearly that he would like to see a public referendum on corporate actions.

What right does joe public have to tell a corporation what to do? The only people that have that right are the shareholders (owners).

[DrCaleb]

peck420 wrote:

Just reread Thanos' post, he states quite clearly that he would like to see a public referendum on corporate actions.

What right does joe public have to tell a corporation what to do? The only people that have that right are the shareholders (owners).

Ahh Yes, so he does. But Thanos can be a bit 'reactionary' at times too. I could see people voting on a trade issue, ie: would we allow company "X" to continue to import and sell product after dumping all those taxpayers as employees . . . but being shareholders has more clout and is workable under the current system.

[Thanos]

All this was mere hyperbole on my part. It wasn't intended as such but it has served to illustrate how the interests of capitalism and of private shareholders can so easily defeat the interests of the public at a large or even the health of an entire nation. "Public interest" in and of itself is probably a thing of the rapidly receding past. It got kicked to death apparently by the philosophy of "I'm alright Jack, keep your hands off of my stack".

[BartSimpson]

Public interest and private profits don't have to be at odds. But when the entangling of government regulation and the operation of private industry becomes inseparable, then both public interest and private profits are displaced by avarice.

Government should regulate business, I don't dispute that. But where government goes wrong is when they tell businesses what to do.

With the banks we had government demand that the banks lend to people with bad credit who lived in areas with sketchy property values. Ten years after the fact the resulting aberration in the market collpased and here we are.

Another example of this is the US government insisting that US auto makers produce electric cars. The consequence of this is that General Motors right now is sitting on some 120,000 unsold Chevy Volt electric cars that no one wants to buy. So when GM does a write down on this who's to blame?

Let the government govern and let business people worry about business.

[Proculation]

BartSimpson wrote:

One of the more compelling passages here is:

Quote:

Historian Jiri Pernes also said at the beginning of the conference that communism is a constant threat, among others because this ideology is comprehensible even for not very educated people.

Moreover, the poor will always blame the rich for their poverty and they will be striving for a change to their situation, Pernes added.

Which explains why the folks who eschew personal responsibility seem to be the most ardent advocates of collectivism and class envy.

The thing is that collectivism is "natural" in the sense that it is behaving in a pattern that you can totally understand: you care about other, you help them. That's why most young people have socialist values. It's innate.

On the other end, you have the whole society living on a tradition developing from thousands of years. Developing between billions of people, each of one doing what's good for them. But while doing what's good for you (working), you are "helping" some people you don't know about. For a lot of people, that is irrational. Capitalism is mostly irrational because one single mind cannot explain it. It just is.

[herbie]

Quote:

Government should regulate business, I don't dispute that. But where government goes wrong is when they tell businesses what to do.

That's a good one. Regulate it with with rules that don't DO anything. Make them fill in Form A-712b if they're moving everyone's job to Bangla Desh. Fine them a dime for every barrel of spilled oil.

[Zipperfish]

Proculation wrote:

The thing is that collectivism is "natural" in the sense that it is behaving in a pattern that you can totally understand: you care about other, you help them. That's why most young people have socialist values. It's innate.
.

I don't think so. Children don't "naturally" share. That is behaviour we teach them. Most of them figure out over time that sharing and caring won't make you much money. A lot of people get stinking rich by being sociopathic assholes.

I find this entire article odd, given that the US is further right and further from communism than it's ever been.

[Mr_Canada]