The would-be corporate royalty and the multi-mega-billionaires add nothing to the society as their activities are confined to "owning" land, machinery and people, people who in turn employ others who in turn do something actually useful.
I am fairly confident that the multi-mega-billionaires do more with their money than what you espouse. I imagine they do not keep their billions under their golden-goose-feathered mattresses or in their diamond-encrusted cookie jars. My guess is that their money:
- is in a bank, giving the bank the ability to lend money to the "little people" to purchase homes, cars. etc.
- is in stock, giving companies of all shapes/sizes capital they need to fund operations, make investments, and grow, thus having some benefit to the "little people"
Of course we all know they intentionally cause cancer in orphans so they can turn around and donate to the Help Orphans With Cancer fund so they can score karma points with society.
A process which would have gone on just as lively if the mega-billionaires were removed from the picture. Far more efficiently actually as a large number of small businesses competing in a marketplace is far more society-friendly then a few mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic fiefdoms.
Did you type this on your PC after you did some searching on Google while drinking Coca-Cola with your Large Big Mac Meal? I believe that each of those items I just mentioned were bourne from "little people" and small businesses that came up with products/ideas that the market has responded to, and thus, making many of those involved mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic emperors of evil.
Market forces will eventually make these oligopolistic fiefdoms has-beens fit for a future documentary on the History Channel - a channel which will probably be broacast directly to your grey matter because someone without a lot of money today will have an idea to make it possible, and will make billions from it.
As with most things in life, the "News Industry" is driven by demand. Hate seeing reports about Britney/Lindsey/Paris/Suri/Jen/Stedman? Guess what - you're stuck with it because there are enough people who watch those stories and buy those tabloids to make them into a profitable business.
The same goes for the traditional News Media in general. There are more than enough people watching the alarmist, cookie-cutter dribble to perpetuate its profitability. CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS are unbearable to watch.
It's great to theorize why the News Media fails, but in the end, until the market starts to demand other outlets/methods on a large enough scale, we'll be stuck with stories about Anna Nichole Smith.
Slashdot Mirror
I am fairly confident that the multi-mega-billionaires do more with their money than what you espouse. I imagine they do not keep their billions under their golden-goose-feathered mattresses or in their diamond-encrusted cookie jars. My guess is that their money:
- is in a bank, giving the bank the ability to lend money to the "little people" to purchase homes, cars. etc.
- is in stock, giving companies of all shapes/sizes capital they need to fund operations, make investments, and grow, thus having some benefit to the "little people"
Of course we all know they intentionally cause cancer in orphans so they can turn around and donate to the Help Orphans With Cancer fund so they can score karma points with society.
A process which would have gone on just as lively if the mega-billionaires were removed from the picture. Far more efficiently actually as a large number of small businesses competing in a marketplace is far more society-friendly then a few mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic fiefdoms.
Did you type this on your PC after you did some searching on Google while drinking Coca-Cola with your Large Big Mac Meal? I believe that each of those items I just mentioned were bourne from "little people" and small businesses that came up with products/ideas that the market has responded to, and thus, making many of those involved mega-bazillionaire corporate oligopolistic emperors of evil.
Market forces will eventually make these oligopolistic fiefdoms has-beens fit for a future documentary on the History Channel - a channel which will probably be broacast directly to your grey matter because someone without a lot of money today will have an idea to make it possible, and will make billions from it.
What if the VR simulator is on a treadmill?
As with most things in life, the "News Industry" is driven by demand. Hate seeing reports about Britney/Lindsey/Paris/Suri/Jen/Stedman? Guess what - you're stuck with it because there are enough people who watch those stories and buy those tabloids to make them into a profitable business.
The same goes for the traditional News Media in general. There are more than enough people watching the alarmist, cookie-cutter dribble to perpetuate its profitability. CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS are unbearable to watch.
It's great to theorize why the News Media fails, but in the end, until the market starts to demand other outlets/methods on a large enough scale, we'll be stuck with stories about Anna Nichole Smith.