Yes, but engineers are expensive, and these companies rely on thousands of them to design their products. If they don't collude to suppress engineering salaries then the only option left is to cut back on executive compensation, which is absolutely unacceptable.
The problem is that the powers that be know how to milk the cow from both ends. If you reduce the power of government then they just exercise more power and control via global corporatocracies. While on paper existing as separate organizations, what we have today in the US and many other parts of the world is a government-industrial oligarchy, with executives exerting influence on political leaders in ways that the average citizen cannot endeavor or even understand. Our anti-trust laws discourage companies from secretly colluding on price, but all the major competitors in any industry tend to be members of the same industry trade organizations that represent their interests to our legislators and to the general public with PR campaigns, which can be overt or subliminal. Even across non-competing entities, the boards of directors of public companies are occupied by CEOs of other Fortune 500 companies. When you look at who the bureaucrats are at our nation's most powerful offices, you often see a revolving door from industry to political office and back to industry again. The regulators have a vested interest in looking out for the top players in the industries they are supposed to regulate, as they will earn for themselves top executive roles as long as they don't ruffle any feathers during their political tenure. Our system of government is growing more toward feudalism or the guilds of Florence, where wealth and power is not obtained from individual effort (ie meritocracy) but through cronyism or gaming our legal/political system.
For the global corporatocracy to succeed they do not need totalitarian authority, just a "controlling interest", a skill they mastered in the manner of which they control and profit the most from publicly listed companies while owning less than 50% of outstanding shares. In fact, by promoting the appearance of freedom and "unfettered" competition they exercise more control than an authoritarian regime, since totalitarianism comes with very high operating costs.
Totalitarian regimes often face a united opposition. The cooperation of Western democracies with the Soviet Union against the Fascists of Europe is one example. The cooperation of Communists and Nationalists against French colonial rule in Indochina is another. After victory the alliance typically splinters, and the previously united parties usually return to their natural opposition to each other. Global corporatocracy makes use of totalitarianism where it exists, such as in Fascist China (along the trade coast, not to be confused with the communist agricultural peasant interior of China), but thrives where it can exert influence over seemingly oppositional political movements, such as with the Republican and Democrat parties of the United States. The majority of corporations that contribute to political campaigns tend to donate almost equally to candidates from both parties.
For the most part there is no conspiracy. It is the natural product of the consolidation of mature industries where there is little or no government action to prevent companies from growing "too big to fail." Those who are successful at climbing the corporate ladder eventually discover how the game works, which is a system of reciprocity - quid pro quo, and spin doctoring.
I consider corporatocracy to be a significant threat to democracy and freedom for individuals, especially harmful to those who have humble ambitions such as to raise a family, enjoy their privacy, reap the fruit of their own labor, and live healthy. What is needed is a balanced approach to limiting the power of "Big Government" while also limiting the power of global conglomerates. But if I had to live in a nation with a "Big Government" I would prefer a benevolent, people-friendly society like what is found in Scandinavia, not an equal-opportunity plantation where I might have a shot at retirement so long as I never get sick or if I'm promoted high enough up the scrotumpole to afford my in-network deductible.
But now Obama is overhauling how the NSA collects data. The public will believe that privacy rights have been restored, and the NSA can start remotely monitoring the mics in our cellphones. I'm not going to wear a tinfoil hat, but am I really paranoid or schizo if I wrap my phone in tinfoil?
That just depends on how much the hospital can bill the family, and if the family will pay. If the family says they can have the money in about a week, then "surprise" the patient comes out of suspended animation in about a week, somewhat like how mentally ill patients are released as "successfully treated" as soon as insurance runs out. If the family doesn't have enough income, assets or insurance to even settle for 10% of the bill, then "sorry for your loss, little Johnny is clinically dead."
And when obtaining the urgent permission from the family member they probably won't bother to mention that insurance will leave them high and dry and the hospital will go after every red penny they've got.
It will be utilized if the patient does not refuse treatment. Being unconscious is implied consent. Having a knife or gun-shot wound and consenting to treatment is all that is needed. Insurance doesn't cover experimental procedures, so if you consent you will probably be billed the balance, which would surely leave you bankrupt if you don't have $750k lying around. Of course, bankruptcy was "reformed" in 2005, so it won't really help you much unless you are willing and able to live on the edge of poverty for five years while you pay off as much of the debt as you can.
Courts have ruled that if you don't pay for the services provided under implied consent (ie. unconscious) then that would be tantamount to unjust enrichment if those services were necessary to protect life or limb. Which means the hospital will sue you, you will lose, and they will take everything you've got.
Given that the cost to remove organs or extend life support to make organ donation possible has been billed to the families of the deceased, I think matters such as organ donation need to remain opt-in. If physicians can sell your heart for $200k, why can't the decedent's estate receive a 2% or 3% commission? If we have chosen to keep a capitalist (not to be confused with "free market") healthcare system, why not let patients choose who to sell their organs to and for how much. I can take out a life insurance policy and use it as collateral for a loan. That is, I can chose for someone else to profit on the event of my death. Why can't I chose to profit from the potential sale of skin grafts or corneas or research use of my body? As for donation, I have had a very private discussion with my immediate family. No doctor or hospital is going to make organ-use decisions while my life is hanging in the balance, no matter how perfect my heart will be for the hospital trustee's wife, who's been on an organ waiting list for over a year. I've seen too much of the dark side of human nature to trust any doctor, scientist, politician or business person to do the "right" thing.
Which makes it such a great business! Customers that never say "no", regardless of how large the bill will be. So the bill just keeps getting bigger even if there is just a slight chance of settling for only a fraction of the amount. Since credit scores are more important than ever, and there is no REAL bankruptcy, most patients will pay whatever money they can scrounge up or borrow from family. Every now and then a wealthy person falls through the cracks with a lapse in insurance coverage or his injuries keep him unconscious for more than the 24 hours that hospitals have to accept insurance at in-network rates. Cha-ching! Jackpot!
It's better when you're dead. They (hospital, physicians groups, etc.) can charge even more, claim that you consented to treatment, and when you're dead your testimony isn't available and there is more to keep your family preoccupied rather than focused on fighting fraudulent bills. Given that insurance companies reimburse at notoriously low amounts, the incentive has never been greater for medical providers to try to find families with enough assets to go after with treatments that insurance won't cover, especially experimental procedures, as well as utilizing out-of-network services in sneaky ways (such as a "facility" that is physically inside the doctor's office but not "in-network", or staff, such as an out-of-network nurse-practitioner, an out-of-network phlebotomist to draw your blood, or anesthesiologist that you never meet).
Don't forget that a consultant is just an executive in between management gigs. Executives hire consultants knowing their services are not needed nor valuable, but it is a form of nepotism within the management caste, and reciprocity is the grease that oils the path of wealth to an ever decreasing number of top players. The same is also true for board governance. The list of directors for Fortune 500 companies is public, and if you examine that list you will discover that the majority of board members of company x also happen to be the CEO of company y, or they used to be the CEO of company z, or they will soon become the CEO of company w. And they currently sit on the boards of two or three other Fortune 500 companies. So what you have is an oligarchy of CEOs voting on how high to pay each other. Thus it should come to no surprise that when times are hard CEOs need bonuses and salary increases to retain talent during turbulent times, and when times are good CEOs need even bigger payouts. If a company is going out of business it is paramount to give the CEO an exorbitant severance package (golden parachute) regardless of how incompetent or just plain greedy he may have been. And when CEO pay is 400 times worker pay, a very effective PR campaign spreads the message that such compensation is just a mysterious product of a blind and ignorant "free market" force that apparently values CEO talent over any other resource.
Worse still is that this top-level nepotism is not unique to profitable businesses. Executives from the business world sit on boards of non-profits and vote for higher non-profit CEO pay. The non-profit CEOs are also sitting on the boards of the very same Fortune 500 companies voting reciprocally for higher executive perks and compensation.
When I realized I had grown up, I suddenly realized that it was not the glorious achievement I had expected it to be. Now I'm trying to pretend that I'm still growing up. You learn more that way, and it's more fun.
Step 1: Went outside. Talked to people. Did stuff. Failed miserably.
Step 2: Read book about doing stuff.
Step 3: Actually did better after reading about doing stuff.
Re:Yes, be very careful with that
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 1
This is exactly why I cringe anytime I hear people raise the issue of "social skills", learning how to use body language to achieve your objectives, or other techniques of mastering human interaction. It all comes across as very conniving and manipulative, and not in a good way. Reminds me somewhat as how coaches teach intimidation tactics to young athletes - I don't think that fits the bill for what good sportsmanship should be all about. I've even seen car salespeople try to use some bizarre technique of staring at me silently for a good 4-5 seconds before responding to my offer or counter-offer. When I catch someone using some "social" technique on me I really don't want to continue trying to do business with that person.
BTW, referring to valued employees as "human resources" also rubs me the wrong way. "Personnel Dept" might be cold and off-putting, but HR makes me think of organ donors.
Do they have those? I've just been going on stuff I've seen on TV shows, which usually doesn't work out for me the way it does for the story characters.
There has to be more "science" to this that can be quantified and taught to students, at least to allow them to choose to be yes-men or to be leaders. It's a scary jump from crowd pleaser to taking a stand. Which should not be confused with "just be yourself", as that advice has proved to be an absolute disaster to many who accepted that challenge.
If your shorts haven't changed color then I guess it works.
Re:"hacking charisma"
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Thank you for your excellent example of rhetorical technique. You've built an impressive straw man from an ad hominem buried into a loaded question, with implied phony refutation, slanter, and appeal to ignorance tossed in just for fun. All in less than 20 words. Posting as Anonymous Coward just adds to the touch. Brilliant! You're catching on to how this social manipulation thing works. I see great things in your future.
The big problem here is that they introduce a non-effective amount of antibiotics on a semi-large scale to a large flora of diseases. This is essentially a training camp for widespread antibiotic-resistance.
You mean like what happens at industrial CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)? Ground water near such a facility could likely have all sorts of traces of such antibiotics, and could easily find its way into products made with that water.
Closer to densely populated cities, products made with ground water or reservoir water can have traces of all sorts of potent drugs, some with very long half lifes. Most unused medicine ends up in local landfills, and the rest tends to end up in waste water treatment plants that are not designed to monitor, filter or break down these complex chemical structures.
The only problem with a 1,000 sentence condensed into 10 years is that a prisoner rights group will argue that the prisoners will need more than their one-hour of outside recreation time. A lawyer could probably convince a judge sooner or later that in the first 30 years of his "sentence" that the prisoner was very well behaved and should be released on parole, even if in real time he served only three months.
I would also be concerned about prisoners developing a dependency on this type of drug.
Which raises another question: why couldn't this drug be put to use so that I can enjoy a three week vacation at the end of my typical real-time work day?
How productive would a prisoner be on such a drug? Would they be able to benefit from counseling, group therapy, prison ministries, community service projects, job training, prison jobs, etc. or would the prisoners be stuck in a coma-like stasis? I'd rather have a prison population that was either very busy working on rehabilitation efforts, or for those serving life or on death-row, those prisoners should be given an opportunity to contribute to their own support, such as working in the prison kitchen, laundry, etc.
I've seen how much the bill is for a civilian to spend one week in an ICU. I think the prison system is expensive enough as it is.
It's worth noting that the rumors of death camps and the mass extermination of men, women, and children of "undesirables" by the Nazis were generally disregarded by Allied commanders as wartime propaganda until they began stumbling onto mass graves and liberating the death camps themselves. Such propaganda would not have been unusual, as "Huns" were often depicted during the First World War as eating babies in propaganda posters.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. The proponents of such theories usually believe that there is some exclusive group of a few people actively engaged in a secret plot to accomplish some stated goal by pursuing or suppressing some seemingly harmless agenda. The reality is often much darker, not because there is any sinister plot, but simply that organizational dynamics and the natural pursuit of self interest tend to combine in ways that serve one class of people at the expense of another, or that serve short term interests of decision makers at the expense of the long term interests of all parties involved. These are often best illustrated by case studies, particularly when a large business fails without much advanced warning.
Conspiracy theories thrive when the proponents become aware of some disturbing reality or half-truth from an environment or industry that is not very transparent or easily understood. Recent revelations about "Pink Slime" have people questioning the quality and safety of the food they consume, and after accepting the reality that dark things do happen in the food industry it is much easier for the same people to accept with less, or no, evidence all sorts of industrial food conspiracies. It's not as fun to just accept that if a few companies in a very competitive industry with low margins have found a way to make a waste product edible, giving a slight boost to profits, that other companies will jump on the bandwagon. It's much more fun to believe that a secret organization of world leaders, a wealthy and powerful crime syndicate, or the prominent members of a close-knit religious or ethnic group is intentionally trying to alter our food supply and trick us into consuming food laced with carcinogens and flesh eating bacteria as one step towards achieving some even more sinister objective.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but engineers are expensive, and these companies rely on thousands of them to design their products. If they don't collude to suppress engineering salaries then the only option left is to cut back on executive compensation, which is absolutely unacceptable.
The problem is that the powers that be know how to milk the cow from both ends. If you reduce the power of government then they just exercise more power and control via global corporatocracies. While on paper existing as separate organizations, what we have today in the US and many other parts of the world is a government-industrial oligarchy, with executives exerting influence on political leaders in ways that the average citizen cannot endeavor or even understand. Our anti-trust laws discourage companies from secretly colluding on price, but all the major competitors in any industry tend to be members of the same industry trade organizations that represent their interests to our legislators and to the general public with PR campaigns, which can be overt or subliminal. Even across non-competing entities, the boards of directors of public companies are occupied by CEOs of other Fortune 500 companies. When you look at who the bureaucrats are at our nation's most powerful offices, you often see a revolving door from industry to political office and back to industry again. The regulators have a vested interest in looking out for the top players in the industries they are supposed to regulate, as they will earn for themselves top executive roles as long as they don't ruffle any feathers during their political tenure. Our system of government is growing more toward feudalism or the guilds of Florence, where wealth and power is not obtained from individual effort (ie meritocracy) but through cronyism or gaming our legal/political system.
For the global corporatocracy to succeed they do not need totalitarian authority, just a "controlling interest", a skill they mastered in the manner of which they control and profit the most from publicly listed companies while owning less than 50% of outstanding shares. In fact, by promoting the appearance of freedom and "unfettered" competition they exercise more control than an authoritarian regime, since totalitarianism comes with very high operating costs.
Totalitarian regimes often face a united opposition. The cooperation of Western democracies with the Soviet Union against the Fascists of Europe is one example. The cooperation of Communists and Nationalists against French colonial rule in Indochina is another. After victory the alliance typically splinters, and the previously united parties usually return to their natural opposition to each other. Global corporatocracy makes use of totalitarianism where it exists, such as in Fascist China (along the trade coast, not to be confused with the communist agricultural peasant interior of China), but thrives where it can exert influence over seemingly oppositional political movements, such as with the Republican and Democrat parties of the United States. The majority of corporations that contribute to political campaigns tend to donate almost equally to candidates from both parties.
For the most part there is no conspiracy. It is the natural product of the consolidation of mature industries where there is little or no government action to prevent companies from growing "too big to fail." Those who are successful at climbing the corporate ladder eventually discover how the game works, which is a system of reciprocity - quid pro quo, and spin doctoring.
I consider corporatocracy to be a significant threat to democracy and freedom for individuals, especially harmful to those who have humble ambitions such as to raise a family, enjoy their privacy, reap the fruit of their own labor, and live healthy. What is needed is a balanced approach to limiting the power of "Big Government" while also limiting the power of global conglomerates. But if I had to live in a nation with a "Big Government" I would prefer a benevolent, people-friendly society like what is found in Scandinavia, not an equal-opportunity plantation where I might have a shot at retirement so long as I never get sick or if I'm promoted high enough up the scrotumpole to afford my in-network deductible.
But now Obama is overhauling how the NSA collects data. The public will believe that privacy rights have been restored, and the NSA can start remotely monitoring the mics in our cellphones. I'm not going to wear a tinfoil hat, but am I really paranoid or schizo if I wrap my phone in tinfoil?
Exactly! Nobody gives a carp, which is why I am not even going to post a comment.
That just depends on how much the hospital can bill the family, and if the family will pay. If the family says they can have the money in about a week, then "surprise" the patient comes out of suspended animation in about a week, somewhat like how mentally ill patients are released as "successfully treated" as soon as insurance runs out. If the family doesn't have enough income, assets or insurance to even settle for 10% of the bill, then "sorry for your loss, little Johnny is clinically dead."
And when obtaining the urgent permission from the family member they probably won't bother to mention that insurance will leave them high and dry and the hospital will go after every red penny they've got.
It will be utilized if the patient does not refuse treatment. Being unconscious is implied consent. Having a knife or gun-shot wound and consenting to treatment is all that is needed. Insurance doesn't cover experimental procedures, so if you consent you will probably be billed the balance, which would surely leave you bankrupt if you don't have $750k lying around. Of course, bankruptcy was "reformed" in 2005, so it won't really help you much unless you are willing and able to live on the edge of poverty for five years while you pay off as much of the debt as you can.
Courts have ruled that if you don't pay for the services provided under implied consent (ie. unconscious) then that would be tantamount to unjust enrichment if those services were necessary to protect life or limb. Which means the hospital will sue you, you will lose, and they will take everything you've got.
Given that the cost to remove organs or extend life support to make organ donation possible has been billed to the families of the deceased, I think matters such as organ donation need to remain opt-in. If physicians can sell your heart for $200k, why can't the decedent's estate receive a 2% or 3% commission? If we have chosen to keep a capitalist (not to be confused with "free market") healthcare system, why not let patients choose who to sell their organs to and for how much. I can take out a life insurance policy and use it as collateral for a loan. That is, I can chose for someone else to profit on the event of my death. Why can't I chose to profit from the potential sale of skin grafts or corneas or research use of my body? As for donation, I have had a very private discussion with my immediate family. No doctor or hospital is going to make organ-use decisions while my life is hanging in the balance, no matter how perfect my heart will be for the hospital trustee's wife, who's been on an organ waiting list for over a year. I've seen too much of the dark side of human nature to trust any doctor, scientist, politician or business person to do the "right" thing.
Which makes it such a great business! Customers that never say "no", regardless of how large the bill will be. So the bill just keeps getting bigger even if there is just a slight chance of settling for only a fraction of the amount. Since credit scores are more important than ever, and there is no REAL bankruptcy, most patients will pay whatever money they can scrounge up or borrow from family. Every now and then a wealthy person falls through the cracks with a lapse in insurance coverage or his injuries keep him unconscious for more than the 24 hours that hospitals have to accept insurance at in-network rates. Cha-ching! Jackpot!
It's better when you're dead. They (hospital, physicians groups, etc.) can charge even more, claim that you consented to treatment, and when you're dead your testimony isn't available and there is more to keep your family preoccupied rather than focused on fighting fraudulent bills. Given that insurance companies reimburse at notoriously low amounts, the incentive has never been greater for medical providers to try to find families with enough assets to go after with treatments that insurance won't cover, especially experimental procedures, as well as utilizing out-of-network services in sneaky ways (such as a "facility" that is physically inside the doctor's office but not "in-network", or staff, such as an out-of-network nurse-practitioner, an out-of-network phlebotomist to draw your blood, or anesthesiologist that you never meet).
True. Happens in convents all the time.
Don't forget that a consultant is just an executive in between management gigs. Executives hire consultants knowing their services are not needed nor valuable, but it is a form of nepotism within the management caste, and reciprocity is the grease that oils the path of wealth to an ever decreasing number of top players. The same is also true for board governance. The list of directors for Fortune 500 companies is public, and if you examine that list you will discover that the majority of board members of company x also happen to be the CEO of company y, or they used to be the CEO of company z, or they will soon become the CEO of company w. And they currently sit on the boards of two or three other Fortune 500 companies. So what you have is an oligarchy of CEOs voting on how high to pay each other. Thus it should come to no surprise that when times are hard CEOs need bonuses and salary increases to retain talent during turbulent times, and when times are good CEOs need even bigger payouts. If a company is going out of business it is paramount to give the CEO an exorbitant severance package (golden parachute) regardless of how incompetent or just plain greedy he may have been. And when CEO pay is 400 times worker pay, a very effective PR campaign spreads the message that such compensation is just a mysterious product of a blind and ignorant "free market" force that apparently values CEO talent over any other resource.
Worse still is that this top-level nepotism is not unique to profitable businesses. Executives from the business world sit on boards of non-profits and vote for higher non-profit CEO pay. The non-profit CEOs are also sitting on the boards of the very same Fortune 500 companies voting reciprocally for higher executive perks and compensation.
When I realized I had grown up, I suddenly realized that it was not the glorious achievement I had expected it to be. Now I'm trying to pretend that I'm still growing up. You learn more that way, and it's more fun.
Response:
Step 1: Went outside. Talked to people. Did stuff. Failed miserably.
Step 2: Read book about doing stuff.
Step 3: Actually did better after reading about doing stuff.
This is exactly why I cringe anytime I hear people raise the issue of "social skills", learning how to use body language to achieve your objectives, or other techniques of mastering human interaction. It all comes across as very conniving and manipulative, and not in a good way. Reminds me somewhat as how coaches teach intimidation tactics to young athletes - I don't think that fits the bill for what good sportsmanship should be all about. I've even seen car salespeople try to use some bizarre technique of staring at me silently for a good 4-5 seconds before responding to my offer or counter-offer. When I catch someone using some "social" technique on me I really don't want to continue trying to do business with that person.
BTW, referring to valued employees as "human resources" also rubs me the wrong way. "Personnel Dept" might be cold and off-putting, but HR makes me think of organ donors.
Do they have those? I've just been going on stuff I've seen on TV shows, which usually doesn't work out for me the way it does for the story characters.
There has to be more "science" to this that can be quantified and taught to students, at least to allow them to choose to be yes-men or to be leaders. It's a scary jump from crowd pleaser to taking a stand. Which should not be confused with "just be yourself", as that advice has proved to be an absolute disaster to many who accepted that challenge.
Likewise, not all sociopaths have good aim or enough skill in Chemistry to build a WMD, but I'm more concerned about those that do.
Let's see if this works:
"HOYOHOYO"
If your shorts haven't changed color then I guess it works.
Thank you for your excellent example of rhetorical technique. You've built an impressive straw man from an ad hominem buried into a loaded question, with implied phony refutation, slanter, and appeal to ignorance tossed in just for fun. All in less than 20 words. Posting as Anonymous Coward just adds to the touch. Brilliant! You're catching on to how this social manipulation thing works. I see great things in your future.
The big problem here is that they introduce a non-effective amount of antibiotics on a semi-large scale to a large flora of diseases.
This is essentially a training camp for widespread antibiotic-resistance.
You mean like what happens at industrial CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations)? Ground water near such a facility could likely have all sorts of traces of such antibiotics, and could easily find its way into products made with that water.
Closer to densely populated cities, products made with ground water or reservoir water can have traces of all sorts of potent drugs, some with very long half lifes. Most unused medicine ends up in local landfills, and the rest tends to end up in waste water treatment plants that are not designed to monitor, filter or break down these complex chemical structures.
The only problem with a 1,000 sentence condensed into 10 years is that a prisoner rights group will argue that the prisoners will need more than their one-hour of outside recreation time. A lawyer could probably convince a judge sooner or later that in the first 30 years of his "sentence" that the prisoner was very well behaved and should be released on parole, even if in real time he served only three months.
I would also be concerned about prisoners developing a dependency on this type of drug.
Which raises another question: why couldn't this drug be put to use so that I can enjoy a three week vacation at the end of my typical real-time work day?
How productive would a prisoner be on such a drug? Would they be able to benefit from counseling, group therapy, prison ministries, community service projects, job training, prison jobs, etc. or would the prisoners be stuck in a coma-like stasis? I'd rather have a prison population that was either very busy working on rehabilitation efforts, or for those serving life or on death-row, those prisoners should be given an opportunity to contribute to their own support, such as working in the prison kitchen, laundry, etc.
I've seen how much the bill is for a civilian to spend one week in an ICU. I think the prison system is expensive enough as it is.
It's worth noting that the rumors of death camps and the mass extermination of men, women, and children of "undesirables" by the Nazis were generally disregarded by Allied commanders as wartime propaganda until they began stumbling onto mass graves and liberating the death camps themselves. Such propaganda would not have been unusual, as "Huns" were often depicted during the First World War as eating babies in propaganda posters.
That's the problem with conspiracy theories. The proponents of such theories usually believe that there is some exclusive group of a few people actively engaged in a secret plot to accomplish some stated goal by pursuing or suppressing some seemingly harmless agenda. The reality is often much darker, not because there is any sinister plot, but simply that organizational dynamics and the natural pursuit of self interest tend to combine in ways that serve one class of people at the expense of another, or that serve short term interests of decision makers at the expense of the long term interests of all parties involved. These are often best illustrated by case studies, particularly when a large business fails without much advanced warning.
Conspiracy theories thrive when the proponents become aware of some disturbing reality or half-truth from an environment or industry that is not very transparent or easily understood. Recent revelations about "Pink Slime" have people questioning the quality and safety of the food they consume, and after accepting the reality that dark things do happen in the food industry it is much easier for the same people to accept with less, or no, evidence all sorts of industrial food conspiracies. It's not as fun to just accept that if a few companies in a very competitive industry with low margins have found a way to make a waste product edible, giving a slight boost to profits, that other companies will jump on the bandwagon. It's much more fun to believe that a secret organization of world leaders, a wealthy and powerful crime syndicate, or the prominent members of a close-knit religious or ethnic group is intentionally trying to alter our food supply and trick us into consuming food laced with carcinogens and flesh eating bacteria as one step towards achieving some even more sinister objective.
I remember when climate change was a conspiracy theory.