You are talking about two parts of the same country. Except in Alabama there is general agreement that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is valid.
Countries refuse to extradite people to other countries every day for political reasons. Dozens of countries won't extradite to the US because of capitol punishment. So I am not sure how your example fits. The US doesn't need to extradite to other countries if it feels like civil rights are going to be taken away.
Spock ended up being combined with the character of "Number One" after the first pilot. In "The Cage" Spock wasn't an emotionless alien. The female second in command was the one that was considered cold and emotionless. When the network wouldn't allow a female commander then that character was removed and her traits given to Spock.
Just fine in bigass-corporate-company land, but the world is bigger than that. A huge amount of US economic activity is in small business, and how many of those have competent IT? This will be a possible opening of a lot of companies for a long time.
This isn't the same as the Industrial Revolution, which created a few jobs for the highest skilled and most jobs where workers could be interchangeable. It's the other way around this time..
The GOP, especially in its current form, has a strong sense of "deserving" and "non-deserving" people. If you can't get a good job, or in poor health, or whatever there is a sense (maybe coming from US Puritanical roots?) that the hardship is deserved. And there is a sense that any outcomes, including extreme poverty and even death, are deserved... and this is getting worse I don't see this as controversial; go on any highly right wing comment board on the 'net and you will see it.
When the cards are stacked against these people even further because of further mechanism of jobs will this extreme bias against those who start out with LESS than the rest of us will this idea stop? I doubt it.
Not to mention that the removal of the new deal and systematic attack on labor has made sure that the benefirts of that productivity has gone to mostly the top.01%.
George Jetson, on the famous cartoon show, used to complain how long the 3 day work weeks were! Everyone that put in work was supposed to benefit. It isn't working out that way.
I agree with the basis of this argument in general, but as usual an entire group is forgotten.
We do have people who are not as smart as others. We have a very solid N% of people who will never be knowledge workers, who can't understand complex concepts, etc. In the US, with it's politics going out of control, we've also got a large group of smart people who won't make it because they won't have access to education they need (or the education becomes indoctrination and corporate training instead).
These people have to live somehow. Will we go the "Player Piano" route and guarantee a wage, or we will we go full GOP derp and just hope they die?
Which is, yet again, a great example how every little thing in a society shouldn't be run on profit motive only. There are lots of things worth doing for the good of everyone that might lead to a fat cat getting a little less money but are still worth doing.
Another big myth is that the ideas you point out above, while accurate, are somehow handed down from god and not changeable.
The history of the US corporation is a sorted affair, and in the beginning the country actually put limits in corporate charters to keep corporations under control for the very reasons you describe. The corporation isn't some god given construct, it is actually a creature of the state. What we see right now is what happens when the society refuses to regulate it.
> problem with corporations is it more or less encourages people to break the law, since they end up bearing no legal responsibility.
I know to the guy on the street this seems irrelevant, but this is a major, major issue. It also is backed up by one of the worst pieces of doublethink that you have to believe in corporate culture.
CEO pay is through the roof, and in the US it's always "justified" by the amount of responsibility a CEO supposedly has in a company. However, every time there is a huge case of corporate malfeasance the CEO always claims that he/she had no knowledge of the lawbreaking. So which one is it: does the CEO take responsibility for the company or not?
The best example I know of this in modern life is Rick Scott. He was the CEO of a company that perpetrated the largest fraud in Medicare history. However (at least in the minds of the pro-corporate masses) he didn't even get a scratch on his reputation, let alone get indited for anything. It takes too many mental gymnastics for me to believe that his company's Medicare fraud did not personally enrich him.
To me this seems to be one of the worst societal problems we have to deal with right now. However no one even talks about it.
The modern food multinationals use his romantic notion of farming to their advantage every day. Look at their advertising.
We still give millions of dollars to fams because of that romantic notion. As usuall the corporate welfare goes to the guy in the CEO's office and not the guy in the overalls.
Slashdot Mirror
You are talking about two parts of the same country. Except in Alabama there is general agreement that the Full Faith and Credit Clause is valid.
Countries refuse to extradite people to other countries every day for political reasons. Dozens of countries won't extradite to the US because of capitol punishment. So I am not sure how your example fits. The US doesn't need to extradite to other countries if it feels like civil rights are going to be taken away.
Truth used to be an affirmative defense. We're getting away from that.
And separation of corporations from the state.
Spock ended up being combined with the character of "Number One" after the first pilot. In "The Cage" Spock wasn't an emotionless alien. The female second in command was the one that was considered cold and emotionless. When the network wouldn't allow a female commander then that character was removed and her traits given to Spock.
upwards.
Just fine in bigass-corporate-company land, but the world is bigger than that. A huge amount of US economic activity is in small business, and how many of those have competent IT? This will be a possible opening of a lot of companies for a long time.
People in the US executive class fail upwards.
They are competing against a product that essentially never made it out of public beta?
Maybe they will actually win this time.
Maybe not.
Congress could be replaced by 600 ebay auctions at this point in history. That's even more simple than the robot plan.
Two jobs not everyone can do!
This isn't the same as the Industrial Revolution, which created a few jobs for the highest skilled and most jobs where workers could be interchangeable. It's the other way around this time..
The GOP, especially in its current form, has a strong sense of "deserving" and "non-deserving" people. If you can't get a good job, or in poor health, or whatever there is a sense (maybe coming from US Puritanical roots?) that the hardship is deserved. And there is a sense that any outcomes, including extreme poverty and even death, are deserved... and this is getting worse I don't see this as controversial; go on any highly right wing comment board on the 'net and you will see it.
When the cards are stacked against these people even further because of further mechanism of jobs will this extreme bias against those who start out with LESS than the rest of us will this idea stop? I doubt it.
Maybe if the US *had* a free market I would agree with you.
Hint: we don't. There is a gigantic thumb on one side of the scale.
Not to mention that the removal of the new deal and systematic attack on labor has made sure that the benefirts of that productivity has gone to mostly the top .01%.
George Jetson, on the famous cartoon show, used to complain how long the 3 day work weeks were! Everyone that put in work was supposed to benefit. It isn't working out that way.
I agree with the basis of this argument in general, but as usual an entire group is forgotten.
We do have people who are not as smart as others. We have a very solid N% of people who will never be knowledge workers, who can't understand complex concepts, etc. In the US, with it's politics going out of control, we've also got a large group of smart people who won't make it because they won't have access to education they need (or the education becomes indoctrination and corporate training instead).
These people have to live somehow. Will we go the "Player Piano" route and guarantee a wage, or we will we go full GOP derp and just hope they die?
Which is, yet again, a great example how every little thing in a society shouldn't be run on profit motive only. There are lots of things worth doing for the good of everyone that might lead to a fat cat getting a little less money but are still worth doing.
Have you ever listened to a Scott Walker speech?
Another big myth is that the ideas you point out above, while accurate, are somehow handed down from god and not changeable.
The history of the US corporation is a sorted affair, and in the beginning the country actually put limits in corporate charters to keep corporations under control for the very reasons you describe. The corporation isn't some god given construct, it is actually a creature of the state. What we see right now is what happens when the society refuses to regulate it.
The US congress keeps wanting to make "repatriation holidays" as well that would mean, once again, a huge tax giveaway to multinationals.
Our society is in deep shit.
They installed a copy of Microsoft "Security Essentials" on the main server. It's all fixed/
We essentially have a class of people above the law.
However, Kayne West jumped on stage again at the Grammys so we need to pay attention to that, first...
Davos is just on letter from being "Davros."
Think about it, won't you?
> problem with corporations is it more or less encourages people to break the law, since they end up bearing no legal responsibility.
I know to the guy on the street this seems irrelevant, but this is a major, major issue. It also is backed up by one of the worst pieces of doublethink that you have to believe in corporate culture.
CEO pay is through the roof, and in the US it's always "justified" by the amount of responsibility a CEO supposedly has in a company. However, every time there is a huge case of corporate malfeasance the CEO always claims that he/she had no knowledge of the lawbreaking. So which one is it: does the CEO take responsibility for the company or not?
The best example I know of this in modern life is Rick Scott. He was the CEO of a company that perpetrated the largest fraud in Medicare history. However (at least in the minds of the pro-corporate masses) he didn't even get a scratch on his reputation, let alone get indited for anything. It takes too many mental gymnastics for me to believe that his company's Medicare fraud did not personally enrich him.
To me this seems to be one of the worst societal problems we have to deal with right now. However no one even talks about it.
...I'll go get my wrist slapper and this will all be taken care of right now.
The modern food multinationals use his romantic notion of farming to their advantage every day. Look at their advertising.
We still give millions of dollars to fams because of that romantic notion. As usuall the corporate welfare goes to the guy in the CEO's office and not the guy in the overalls.
The above comment to this is on regulation.
Regulation protects the largest corporations more than it ever will protect your safety.