Guess it’s the same everywhere. Downvotes if you disagree.
19 karma · joined October 15, 2018
You can buy stock with just a few hundred dollars ...
You of course won’t have much voting power but you aren’t risking all that much money. If you have little to no money in it ... then you should have little to no say in how they conduct their business - it’s none of your business; Would you want random strangers to get a say in how you spend your time and money?
Regardless, no one buys stock to “have influence”. People buy stock to (ultimately) make money.
If said shareholders and their corporations are doing things that are harmful to society at large ... that’s what the government and the laws they enforce are for.
> has learned to wield its influence to blunt the people's electoral influence over the government.
And how do they do that?
That’s the thing. Anyone can be a shareholder of a corporation. There is nothing preventing anyone from buying shares. You just have to be willing to risk your money to buy said shares that may or may not yield any returns - i.e. risk throwing away your money.
> Democracies have a lot of experience with representative bodies that can support faster decision-making while still having some accountability to the people. It's a straw-man to to present worker representation as being direct democracy for every decision.
On a separate note, THE people already have democratic control over the most powerful organization in the land, their government.
The government can unilaterally (corporations have no real say) set laws and even break up corporations or even just outright seize them (i.e. nationalization).
We kind of already have that in that democratically elected government officials have the power to unilaterally (without corporations having a say) set laws to constrain the behavior of corporations.
Problem is most of the people don’t elect officials that do so - at least according to some people’s standards.
Slowly their radical beliefs peter out and that’s the end of it.
Technically speaking, Amazon’s shareholders are people too - they aren’t part of the government.
Should we mandate that workers own 50% of every corporation?
Decision making is going to be much harder as you have to poll the workers to get a majority vote.
What happens if the corporation gets super powerful? It’s still a concentration of power - the executive and the workers of the company.
Not as uncommon as you think, https://youtu.be/b2l2ZxNhCSg
Deflation brings its own problems.
Well in your son’s case, it’s not harmful per se according to Wikipedia, Carotenosis is harmless - you will just look orange.
So all we are suppose to do is sing his praises on this site?
It makes any kind of discussion impossible.
Look at the person you relied to, his post is already grey.
The guy is kind of a wanker:
https://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/a5380/millionaire-start...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/aug/29/elon-musk...
Everyone just give him a free pass which is bullshit.
Personally I think the guy is a narcissist given how much he loves attention. Like most narcissists he will shit on you if you get in his way, right and wrong be damned - something to keep in mind.
There has been signs of Russian meddling via propaganda though.
Nevertheless it’s the people who voted.
If said people don’t wake up and realize that they are being played as “useful idiots” to destabilize their own country ...
The central government has to spend resources / outright kneecap regions to keep them under their thumb.
Their mandate to rule seem wholly dependent on wealth.
What exactly is “spirituality”?
Dictionary says it’s “related to soul or spirit” - to paraphrase.
But if you don’t believe in souls/spirits ...
Edit: Nice. No retort. Just downvote.
WASM just skips the JS to JIT compiled bytecode - correct me if I’m wrong. Creating a standardized bytecode for distribution that other languages can compile to.
No reason to continue to shackle the web to JavaScript.
The project seem dead in the water though.
Also judges who interpret the laws ultimately decide what the laws means - possibility even for future similar cases in countries where judges are bound by precedent.
How so?
Only example I can think of is China’s Social Credit system denying loans and traveling permissions to people with a low score - where said score is dependent on your compliance with the whims of the CCP; instead of being dependent on the credit worthiness of the person.
Said person won’t be able to grow his/her business as effectively, reducing his/her company’s competitiveness.
Look at the steel mills of the early 20th century. They had groups of people hoisting around huge pieces of steel on chains.
Look at a modern steel mills. All that hoisting is now done by heavy machinery control by one guy in an air conditioned operator cabin.
By offshoring or just the advancement of technology, those jobs are gone.
People just have to invent new ways to contribute to society - to say it’s “easier said than done” is understatement though; but there is really no other way.
If someone wants to screw with physical votes, they have to access the boxes which hold them. Easily detectable.
Electronic ... you can have the software changed to modify votes and few would be the wiser - even have the changes hide themselves if you are smart.
Heck, jetliners actually can’t land if the tank is too full - https://youtu.be/R9oqi6HteJg
Correct me if I’m wrong.
The current administration cuts the tax rate and borrows to make up for the shortfall in tax revenue.
All this is in hopes that the economy grows enough such that the reduce tax rate can support government spending and pay back the debt + interest.
If the economy goes south for whatever reason (e.g. China imploding, another bubble pops) ...
Reminds me of a blog post I read,
https://www.sebastiansylvan.com/post/the-perils-of-future-co...
At what point does it become over-engineering?
IMHO ideology is a mental shortcut where you blanket apply fixed rules instead of thinking through the specifics of the situation.
People love the various popular ideologies because said ideologies are simple and easier to understand - people want easy answers. Unfortunately the world isn’t simple.
In the words of H. L. Mencken,
“Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.”