Why democracy is failing America

[Phatscotty]

All of that is serious, not one single bit of it is humorous or sarcastic.

The daggering video in my sig is absolutely F'n hilarious though, you'd love it

[tzor]

Bullshit. I mean, sure that was the reasoning given to the public. The actual reason was that Congress was absolutely terrified that another populous president wouldn't conveniently die like FDR did, and go on to be president for life. Could you imagine the kind of power someone like that would accumulate over time? It would be almost like what Putin has done in Russia.

But the real "power" for the President didn't happen until the full implementation of the Progressive movement under FDR. If you take the time to really study the world political situation at the time of FDR, you will see one hand washing the other.

[PLAYER57832]

There will be some day in the future where I will stop responding to the posts you type where you don't address anything I type, but instead go on a random rant. This is, unfortunately for me, not one of those times.

Look... I know you have it ingrained in you to automatically rail against anything I post that has anything remotely to do with politics. But think about what rent-seeking is and think about what you've chosen to care about in your post above - protecting functioning dunes, estuaries, etc. Do you think we don't protect those things because we're ignoring rent seekers or because we're listening to rent seekers? Your post is even more of a brain fart because you neglected to point out the most basic rent seeking extravaganza we have in Pennsylvania right now - the Marcellus Shale.

The problem is that by just using the label "rent seeking", you ignore the underlying issues and values.

You avoid making any real statement, because you get to call it all just "rent seeking". You demonstrate that nicely below, and above. Above when you say that I neglected to point out Marsallus shale. That I chose another example in this particular post in no way means I am ignoring the Marcellus situation. It simply means I used a different example. Besides, the issues are not as distinct as you might wish to believe.

In any event, rent seeking happens and it happens in places you care about and there is little you are willing to do about it.

You are making some pretty big assumptions, based on nothing. By talking about "rent seeking" as if it were some uniform concept, you avoid talking about the details and why I might or might not be taking any specific action. Further, you make a claim nearly impossible to refute. I can bring forward details, and you can simply claim you were talking about something else or deny that what I am doing is anything... etc.

Thank you for showing exactly how politics is serving to remove information and real discussion. Reciting catch phrases is easy. Its understanding the details that is difficult.

[thegreekdog]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

[Metsfanmax]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

I have always found it devoid of meaning. Rent-seeking is just an example of a business doing what it's supposed to be doing best (profit maximization), just in a different arena. I don't see how one could ever eliminate rent-seeking as long as there are ways for businesses to influence government.

[thegreekdog]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

I have always found it devoid of meaning. Rent-seeking is just an example of a business doing what it's supposed to be doing best (profit maximization), just in a different arena. I don't see how one could ever eliminate rent-seeking as long as there are ways for businesses to influence government.

I agree that it cannot be eliminated. But I believe it can be reduced and ultimately marginalized.

[BigBallinStalin]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

I have always found it devoid of meaning. Rent-seeking is just an example of a business doing what it's supposed to be doing best (profit maximization), just in a different arena. I don't see how one could ever eliminate rent-seeking as long as there are ways for businesses to influence government.

The incentives and outcomes differ in the market and in politics. In the market, you can profit-maximize all you want, but you're more at the whim of consumer preferences. In politics, you're not really a consumer as a citizen. When Monsanto gets subsidies, it's not like they need your consent. When Monsanto wants to directly sell you some product, you have significantly greater autonomy over that potential exchange.

Sure, there's marginal costs for reducing rent-seeking, thus it's very costly to eliminate it, but there's piecemeal ways to reduce it. An effective way is scaling back the discretion of government. In regard to outcomes, that's more effective by scaling back national government.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

No, you get to pretend the above applies to what I said because by simply labeling it
"rent seeking", you don't have to deal with any of the complex issues involved or the overall impact.

You get to simplify a whole set of issues into a coup0le of simple catch phrases you have heard put forward by some special interest groups. I am not talking about those groups or what they put forward. Some do have decent messages, but that is irrelevant to my point. My point is that what matters is the science and proof, NOT who wants what.

Also, I said beaches and dunes, not estuaries... different interest groups. YET... the ultimate truth is that they all work together and we, as humanity , need all. No one segment is "more important" than the other. In fact, they have to be built up together for EACH to function well.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

No, you use it because it allows to pretend that all issues are equal, when they are not at all equal.

Also, you get to pretend that a lot of related issues are actually seperate and distinct, thus you get to compare each individual component as if it were a unique part, not just a patch of a whole big issue. By breaking each piece up, you get to pretend that they have less value than they actually do.

Your above arguments demonstrate that well. Not only is it an error to claim estuaries and beaches are the same, it is an error to claim they are not intensely interrelated with what benefits one operating on the other. The same is true, though in a more far-reaching sense, for Marsallas shale.

And, calling it all a set of individual "rent seeking" ideas is part of what allows even someone as intelligent a syou to simply ignore it all.

Dealing with the environment in a real and true way is very overwhelming, but if we want to survive well, survive as a country, perhaps even in our current form as a species, it is necessary to stop pretending any of these externalities are irrelevant and people seeking change are merely excercising another form of rent seeking.

Science is not about "rent seeking" it is about evidence and proven value. Economics can be manipulated, IS about human manipulation, it is merely a reflection of human behavior and in a temporary fashion at that. (politics is even more ephemeral, of course) Science is about discovery and prediction of reality.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

I have always found it devoid of meaning. Rent-seeking is just an example of a business doing what it's supposed to be doing best (profit maximization), just in a different arena. I don't see how one could ever eliminate rent-seeking as long as there are ways for businesses to influence government.

That is the point. Business is SUPPOSED to make money, but that does not at all corrospond to any determination of what is best for our society or humanity.

Science has to be paramount, Science HAS to be heard and HAS to be fundamental to any major decisions.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Science is about discovery and prediction of reality."

That's great, but it doesn't follow that a government has the correct incentives and knowledge to properly implement the right plan.

[PLAYER57832]

"Science is about discovery and prediction of reality."

That's great, but it doesn't follow that a government has the correct incentives and knowledge to properly implement the right plan.

Business absolutely does not, because their entire emphasis is other.

Some managers might wish to "so what is right", and certainly you can do business, make money "doing what is right". However, that has to be implemented externally.

The external force has to be government. That our current government is not working is a funtion of its being subversive to big business interests, combined with an ignorant or outright misinformed general public.

I don't know of any better form of government than a republican democracy, but most of the true democracy that we have enjoyed and that has lead to our country being what it is, is now being quickly usurped by big business, spurred on first by putting the commerce clause effectively ahead of all other clauses and now, more recently by the move to make corporations somehow "equal" in power, and therefor inherently far more powerful, than individual people.

The driver is education, the very thing that the right wing has carefully deconstructed in our country -- real science knowledge. Some tech, etc science is given support, but baseline research is more and more sidelined because it is not seen to have immediate profit. Yet, the truth is it is that "sideline research" that is the fundament upon which all other investigations and knowldge must be based, judged.

[mrswdk]

Business is SUPPOSED to make money, but that does not at all corrospond to any determination of what is best for our society or humanity

You are assuming that 'making money' is incompatible with doing what is good or best for society. Why do you think so many companies engage in corporate philanthropy, ethical sourcing of their products etc.?

[PLAYER57832]

Business is SUPPOSED to make money, but that does not at all corrospond to any determination of what is best for our society or humanity

You are assuming that 'making money' is incompatible with doing what is good or best for society. Why do you think so many companies engage in corporate philanthropy, ethical sourcing of their products etc.?

No, that is your assumption, not mine. I specifically said that some owners try to do well.

The issue is that the goal of busienss is to make money. That goal very much subverts other desires unless there is serious outside force. One type of force would be rule/laws. Another is education. They need to work in concert.


The point is not that everything businesses do is bad or must be bad. The point is that the driving force of business has nothing at all to do with what is good for society, yet too often, economists and politicians (particularly those on the right) try to claim it is. "What is good for business is good for America". Yet... it often isn't.

[mrswdk]

Here, I'll rephrase a bit and you can try again:

Corporations often find they make more money if they act as responsible and positive members of their respective societies. Being nice attracts customers, you see, and if customers don't like the way a company behaves, they won't give that company their money. So making money actually requires a company to operate according to the moral standards of the society it operates within. Therefore this notion of yours that a company will gleefully go around trashing society is ridiculous, because that company depends on society for survival.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Science is about discovery and prediction of reality."

That's great, but it doesn't follow that a government has the correct incentives and knowledge to properly implement the right plan.

Business absolutely does not, because their entire emphasis is other.

Some managers might wish to "so what is right", and certainly you can do business, make money "doing what is right". However, that has to be implemented externally.

The external force has to be government. That our current government is not working is a funtion of its being subversive to big business interests, combined with an ignorant or outright misinformed general public.

I don't know of any better form of government than a republican democracy, but most of the true democracy that we have enjoyed and that has lead to our country being what it is, is now being quickly usurped by big business, spurred on first by putting the commerce clause effectively ahead of all other clauses and now, more recently by the move to make corporations somehow "equal" in power, and therefor inherently far more powerful, than individual people.

The driver is education, the very thing that the right wing has carefully deconstructed in our country -- real science knowledge. Some tech, etc science is given support, but baseline research is more and more sidelined because it is not seen to have immediate profit. Yet, the truth is it is that "sideline research" that is the fundament upon which all other investigations and knowldge must be based, judged.

Businesses don't what? What does "their entire emphasis is other" mean?

[PLAYER57832]

Here, I'll rephrase a bit and you can try again:

Corporations often find they make more money if they act as responsible and positive members of their respective societies. Being nice attracts customers, you see, and if customers don't like the way a company behaves, they won't give that company their money. So making money actually requires a company to operate according to the moral standards of the society it operates within. Therefore this notion of yours that a company will gleefully go around trashing society is ridiculous, because that company depends on society for survival.

NO, being popular just requires answering to people's IMMEDIATE wants. It has nothing to do with what is ultimately good for society, never mind the world.

Often times the immediate wants are very much at odds with long term benefits. Knowing this requires education.

Look at how few people save for their retirement, how many people object to anything smacking of being "forced" to save. Look also at how our infrastructure is neglected, etc, etc.
Those are all things we pretty well understand. Get into the natural world and that level of understanding is lacking.

In the past, societies failed, but not our ability to utterly damage large swaths for very short term demands is unsurppassed.

I can give you a very short, but telling list:

Love Canal
Red Mountain
Uranium mines on the Navahoe nation lands
Coal mines all over Appalacia
Levis and dykes, particularly in the southeast and the Central portions of CA.
Zebra mussels

Each of these is an example of a different kind of greed versus misunderstanding and underestimation of damage. Each is a very well popularized example representing many, many less well known (sometimes no less damaging, occasionally less damaging than less well known examples).

[PLAYER57832]

"Science is about discovery and prediction of reality."

That's great, but it doesn't follow that a government has the correct incentives and knowledge to properly implement the right plan.

Business absolutely does not, because their entire emphasis is other.

Some managers might wish to "so what is right", and certainly you can do business, make money "doing what is right". However, that has to be implemented externally.

The external force has to be government. That our current government is not working is a funtion of its being subversive to big business interests, combined with an ignorant or outright misinformed general public.

I don't know of any better form of government than a republican democracy, but most of the true democracy that we have enjoyed and that has lead to our country being what it is, is now being quickly usurped by big business, spurred on first by putting the commerce clause effectively ahead of all other clauses and now, more recently by the move to make corporations somehow "equal" in power, and therefor inherently far more powerful, than individual people.

The driver is education, the very thing that the right wing has carefully deconstructed in our country -- real science knowledge. Some tech, etc science is given support, but baseline research is more and more sidelined because it is not seen to have immediate profit. Yet, the truth is it is that "sideline research" that is the fundament upon which all other investigations and knowldge must be based, judged.

Businesses don't what? What does "their entire emphasis is other" mean?

profit.

Take Newman's own as what might be an example of a "good doing" business. It apparently turns all its profits over to charity. Yet, it still operates to earn profits as paramount.

Ben and Jerry's tried a different tactic.. attempting to limit the wages of higher employees proportionally with the lowest paid. They failed, because they could not attract decent CEOs. They were forced to get away from one of the founding principles of the company to stay in business, maintain profits.

Those are each direct examples, involving just human behavior. If you expanded to environmental issues, it becomes a big blank. Most people don't even have what I would consider basic knowledge. They cannot even discuss the needs with true intelligence.

[mrswdk]

NO, being popular just requires answering to people's IMMEDIATE wants. It has nothing to do with what is ultimately good for society, never mind the world.

Often times the immediate wants are very much at odds with long term benefits.

And with that, this thread has turned full circle and returned to 'people don't know what's best for them'.

And your solution is... give the government more power? A government elected by those same people who don't know what's good for them, or an all-powerful, unaccountable government that doesn't have to worry about what voters think?

[mrswdk]

Besides, if people are short-termist by nature then there's no reason to assume a government will behave in a long-termist way, elected or not.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Science is about discovery and prediction of reality."

That's great, but it doesn't follow that a government has the correct incentives and knowledge to properly implement the right plan.

Business absolutely does not, because their entire emphasis is other.

Some managers might wish to "so what is right", and certainly you can do business, make money "doing what is right". However, that has to be implemented externally.

The external force has to be government. That our current government is not working is a funtion of its being subversive to big business interests, combined with an ignorant or outright misinformed general public.

I don't know of any better form of government than a republican democracy, but most of the true democracy that we have enjoyed and that has lead to our country being what it is, is now being quickly usurped by big business, spurred on first by putting the commerce clause effectively ahead of all other clauses and now, more recently by the move to make corporations somehow "equal" in power, and therefor inherently far more powerful, than individual people.

The driver is education, the very thing that the right wing has carefully deconstructed in our country -- real science knowledge. Some tech, etc science is given support, but baseline research is more and more sidelined because it is not seen to have immediate profit. Yet, the truth is it is that "sideline research" that is the fundament upon which all other investigations and knowldge must be based, judged.

Businesses don't what? What does "their entire emphasis is other" mean?

profit.

Take Newman's own as what might be an example of a "good doing" business. It apparently turns all its profits over to charity. Yet, it still operates to earn profits as paramount.

Ben and Jerry's tried a different tactic.. attempting to limit the wages of higher employees proportionally with the lowest paid. They failed, because they could not attract decent CEOs. They were forced to get away from one of the founding principles of the company to stay in business, maintain profits.

Those are each direct examples, involving just human behavior. If you expanded to environmental issues, it becomes a big blank. Most people don't even have what I would consider basic knowledge. They cannot even discuss the needs with true intelligence.

So, because government lacks the incentive of profit, it somehow implements the correct plans?

[thegreekdog]

Okay Player, let's examine your flavor-of-the-month: tidal estuaries. Why do you think funds do not go to preserving tidal estuaries? Is it because companies that benefit from the exploitation of tidal estuaries provide money to politicians so that those companies can more easily exploit tidal estuaries? If the answer is yes (hint, it is yes), then that is rent seeking.

No, you get to pretend the above applies to what I said because by simply labeling it
"rent seeking", you don't have to deal with any of the complex issues involved or the overall impact.

You get to simplify a whole set of issues into a coup0le of simple catch phrases you have heard put forward by some special interest groups. I am not talking about those groups or what they put forward. Some do have decent messages, but that is irrelevant to my point. My point is that what matters is the science and proof, NOT who wants what.

Also, I said beaches and dunes, not estuaries... different interest groups. YET... the ultimate truth is that they all work together and we, as humanity , need all. No one segment is "more important" than the other. In fact, they have to be built up together for EACH to function well.

Yes, rent seeking is buzzphrase. But it's an important buzzphrase and one that takes a great deal of effort to overcome. I don't use that term because I think it's fun or because I'm going to win the Rent Seeking Championship from BBS in 2014. I use the term because it's important and is the cause, in my humble opinion, of much that is wrong with the United States government.

No, you use it because it allows to pretend that all issues are equal, when they are not at all equal.

Also, you get to pretend that a lot of related issues are actually seperate and distinct, thus you get to compare each individual component as if it were a unique part, not just a patch of a whole big issue. By breaking each piece up, you get to pretend that they have less value than they actually do.

Your above arguments demonstrate that well. Not only is it an error to claim estuaries and beaches are the same, it is an error to claim they are not intensely interrelated with what benefits one operating on the other. The same is true, though in a more far-reaching sense, for Marsallas shale.

And, calling it all a set of individual "rent seeking" ideas is part of what allows even someone as intelligent a syou to simply ignore it all.

Dealing with the environment in a real and true way is very overwhelming, but if we want to survive well, survive as a country, perhaps even in our current form as a species, it is necessary to stop pretending any of these externalities are irrelevant and people seeking change are merely excercising another form of rent seeking.

Science is not about "rent seeking" it is about evidence and proven value. Economics can be manipulated, IS about human manipulation, it is merely a reflection of human behavior and in a temporary fashion at that. (politics is even more ephemeral, of course) Science is about discovery and prediction of reality.

You're missing the point because you are projecting a political bias on me. Let me try something different and simple. It should not take multiple paragraphs of mostly irrelevant information to address. Why do you think beaches and dunes are eroding and why do you think governments don't do enough about it?

And yes, science is not about rent seeking. I'm not talking about science. There is little to no rent seeking in science. I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to global warming. I'm talking about politics and the role of government. The government (and citizens and businesses) are given the science and they are determining how to cope with the science that tells them X. How do businesses, citizens and the government decide what to do about the science they are given? The question is not necessarily "what should they do," the answer is "what do they do and why do they do it."

[PLAYER57832]

NO, being popular just requires answering to people's IMMEDIATE wants. It has nothing to do with what is ultimately good for society, never mind the world.

Often times the immediate wants are very much at odds with long term benefits.

And with that, this thread has turned full circle and returned to 'people don't know what's best for them'.

They don't not without education. You neatly avoided that important piece, namely the MOST important part.

And by "education", I don't mean just attention to opinions, I mean facts and the understanding of what makes facts.

And your solution is... give the government more power? A government elected by those same people who don't know what's good for them, or an all-powerful, unaccountable government that doesn't have to worry about what voters think?

No, my solution is education, along with reduction of power of the groups of people we call "corporations". People make mistakes, but nowhere near the mistakes made by groups of people who join solely for the purpose of making profits.

Worse, corporations (including non-profits) are specifically constructed to shield the members from the worst results of their decisions. The corporation may fail, but won't result in personnal harm the way loss of a personally owned business will. Yet, corporations are constructed so that individuals can reap great benefit even without that risk. In fact, some of the greatest gains are through the sale of stocks.

[PLAYER57832]

You're missing the point because you are projecting a political bias on me. Let me try something different and simple. It should not take multiple paragraphs of mostly irrelevant information to address. Why do you think beaches and dunes are eroding and why do you think governments don't do enough about it?

OK, now you are paying attention to a detail, an example I brought up... and have gone away from the basic point which was that your use of "rent seeking" specifically allows you to ignore those details. Ironic, that.
Anyway, to answer that , its not just about beaches eroding. Its about us subverting the natural system without regard.

Beaches are "meant" to erode and be reconstructed, but in a particular manner. We dam up rivers, reducing silt loads, which ultimately result in less sand. We build on cliffs that should erode in some places, again... reducing the input of sand. Other areas that, if left lone, would from barriers are left vulnerable. This impacts spawning grounds of various species, including species of extreme import. We also degrade various types of wetlands by forcing them to take on far more materials (and of different types) than they are designed to utilize.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that while you can parcel out each of these into a specific, individual need or desire, the overall picture is one of a need for all of us. By parcelling it out and pretending that such individualism is appropriate, you don't just minimize the impacts, you utterly disregard the true import of it all.

And yes, science is not about rent seeking. I'm not talking about science. There is little to no rent seeking in science.

Exactly.

Well, make that "there shouldn't be". The problem is that money is only available from the profits of rent seekers in our current system... and thus it all gets subverted.

Which, brings us back to my original point.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist when it comes to global warming. I'm talking about politics and the role of government. The government (and citizens and businesses) are given the science and they are determining how to cope with the science that tells them X. How do businesses, citizens and the government decide what to do about the science they are given? The question is not necessarily "what should they do," the answer is "what do they do and why do they do it."

See, this divide "I am not talking about global warming, I am talking about politics and government" is false. Right now, science very much is, sadly, too often about individual demands -- "rent seeking", if you will. This is because it depends so heavily upon popular funding. The government is still the primary functionary for funding basic base line research, but much of that has been cut or subverted to answer to individual needs and desires. A lot has just plain become privatized. Even tax-payer funding is funneled through private entities in various way -- most notably through turning government programs into contract entities.

Science needs to be seperate. Part of why it is not is this tendency to just label everything AS IF it were all equal. The term "rent seeking" does that very well. You could substitute "special interests" or several other terms used in the past. The point of all of them is to put a label on a whole group of things so that they can be talked about in esoteric terms, and debated en masse, instead of individually.

The problem is that right now, we face a series of very critical and far reaching environmental crisis. We cannot afford to just dismiss it all as mere special interest, rent seekers or anything else.

Yet... I fear we are past the point of no return here in this country. Undoing the uneducation that has happened in the past 20 years will take more than 20 years, and I fear outside interests will long have already ceased control here before that can come to pass.

I AM a conspiracy theorist when it comes to our national interests versus other nations. I think we have been quite naive in opening up ourselves so fully to entities like China, Saudis Arabia and the like. Our security rests only in the prevalence of free information. Yet, that is a tenuous hold, today, in the age of the internet and so readily subverted information.

[mrswdk]

They don't not without education. And by "education", I don't mean just attention to opinions, I mean facts and the understanding of what makes facts.

Ironic, given that the person in this thread who seems to have the highest regard for opinions and unfounded hypotheses is you (judging by your comments in the happiness thread).

People make mistakes, but nowhere near the mistakes made by groups of people who join solely for the purpose of making profits

Yup, people who join together for other purposes (e.g. political) tend to make far smaller mistakes than all those evil, clumsy corporations. Word.

[mrswdk]

Besides, you still haven't made any clear points about the exact nature of the malign influence 'corporations' have on society, or how to make things better. You're just saying lots of words.