Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

CNN is promoting an clip of Fareed Zakaria interviewing Jon Stewart.  Jon nails it in my opinion, pointing out that three people have already gone to jail after working closely with Trump, and at least one of them clearly took the fall for Trump.  But he then says this is about more than Trump.  For him it's about how if you're rich enough and powerful enough in this country, you simply won't be prosecuted for crimes other than maybe rape or murder.  He says the average person knows this well, and they've been mad about it for a long time.  Stewart says that the American people were attracted to Trump in part because they thought Trump might dismantle this legal privilege that rich people clearly have. That rings true to me.
But Trump obviously wasn't willing OR able to make any progress in that area. The phrase is overused, but I mean it literally. If you think he was willing to dismantle elite privilege, he must not have been able. If you think he was able to dismantle elite privilege, then he must not have been willing. The privilege clearly remains. And today I think it's obvious that Trump benefits from a lot of that privilege.  This Manhattan DA case is mostly BS, but what about the bank fraud? What about the fraudulent charity?  Corrine Brown went to jail for less.  But I digress.
All that said, is the remedy to all this elite impunity as simple as "get money out of politics"? If so, how do we "get money out of politics"? What are examples of places that have done this?  Is there anything to learn from state level election law?

You can't. It's deeply rooted. Only way to fix it is to blow it all to hell and back and start over.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

I've said what I think. Personally, I think the easiest way is to tether the top. Then they don't have the money to do these things.

At the very root of our widespread prosperity, the driving force that gives us all the neat stuff we have, from cell phones to pro football franchises, is the desire for money and power. So sometimes rich people have it better than poor people. That's why people want to get rich. And people wanting to get rich is why we have the level of prosperity that we have.

You can't get money out of politics, anyway. We have free speech. Any rich person can buy a newspaper or TV station and say whatever they want. Unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

(03-28-2023, 08:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]At the very root of our widespread prosperity, the driving force that gives us all the neat stuff we have, from cell phones to pro football franchises, is the desire for money and power.  So sometimes rich people have it better than poor people.  That's why people want to get rich.  And people wanting to get rich is why we have the level of prosperity that we have.   

You can't get money out of politics, anyway.  We have free speech.  Any rich person can buy a newspaper or TV station and say whatever they want.  Unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

Yup.

(03-28-2023, 07:20 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I've said what I think. Personally, I think the easiest way is to tether the top. Then they don't have the money to do these things.

Your plan is a very blunt instrument to say the least, but who does it really target?  It seems to target guys like Bezos, forcing them to share more of their earnings with workers and slowing down their accumulation of wealth.  But Bezos is probably not the archetype of an unaccountable elite.  Here in Florida, the archetype in the past would have been Ed Ball.  Today, it might be the Fanjul Brothers or Norm Braman.  These are not the wealthiest people in FL, but they are the ones who make themselves the loudest politically,  with the particular goal of making their streams of income unaccountable to the people.  No one likes overpriced and environmentally destructive sugar, and no one likes car dealers.  Yet we can never find a politician who doesnt like their money.  
You propose that we should force such men to distribute more of their income to their workers, and that would fix things.  Would it really?

I don't have a problem with money being involved in politics. That's not the problem. The problem is to what extent. Campaigns, rally's, poster's, appearances, hotels, teams, etc. That cost money. I get that aspect of it. However.

The problem is when politicians are bought out by the plutocracy and then they get laws and favors passed in Congress to make their lives easier. A good recent example of this is the disaster that happened in Palestine, OH with the train derailment. People with money were able to keep pushing back, and pushing back and pushing back. Now we have an entire town [BLEEP] for years to come. When their were plenty of advocates calling for being technology, equipment and safety practices to be implemented to help curtail or avoid this disaster.

You just saw Philadelphia being told to stock up on bottled water due to a spill of latex chemicals from a plant ending up in the Delaware River. 1.5M people told they'll be S.O.L with tap water in their city and neighboring areas because of this spill as of Monday night. It's commonplace. Just like the banks being bailed out in 2008. Just like the nonsense you're seeing in California with that bank that had a politician clearly lobbying for it to be bailed out after he was tied to it already.

(03-28-2023, 08:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]At the very root of our widespread prosperity, the driving force that gives us all the neat stuff we have, from cell phones to pro football franchises, is the desire for money and power.  So sometimes rich people have it better than poor people.  That's why people want to get rich.  And people wanting to get rich is why we have the level of prosperity that we have.   

You can't get money out of politics, anyway.  We have free speech.  Any rich person can buy a newspaper or TV station and say whatever they want.  Unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

Let's never change, then. This system is broken and getting worse. Sure, at one point, before the elites completely captured our government, this system was prosperous, now it's smoke and mirrors. You want to ride this train to the last stop, even though it's starting to come off the rails. Ayn Rand's "greed is good" only works in any system until the greedy figure out how to exploit it. We hit that point in the 80's, and it's been a slow march towards the death of capitalism ever since. 

EVEN WORSE, you bury your head in the sand as the capitalists TELL YOU they are changing capitalism. They tell you they are buying governments. They tell you they are using them to shape the society how they want. And they are telling you it's going to benefit you. What's the result? We're losing our rights and our prosperity to stakeholder "capitalism." Who are the stakeholders? Why is that even a thing?

---

(03-28-2023, 09:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2023, 07:20 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I've said what I think. Personally, I think the easiest way is to tether the top. Then they don't have the money to do these things.

Your plan is a very blunt instrument to say the least, but who does it really target?  It seems to target guys like Bezos, forcing them to share more of their earnings with workers and slowing down their accumulation of wealth.  But Bezos is probably not the archetype of an unaccountable elite.  Here in Florida, the archetype in the past would have been Ed Ball.  Today, it might be the Fanjul Brothers or Norm Braman.  These are not the wealthiest people in FL, but they are the ones who make themselves the loudest politically,  with the particular goal of making their streams of income unaccountable to the people.  No one likes overpriced and environmentally destructive sugar, and no one likes car dealers.  Yet we can never find a politician who doesnt like their money.  
You propose that we should force such men to distribute more of their income to their workers, and that would fix things.  Would it really?

It targets the "stakeholders." It still allows for people to be rich, but it removes the ability for them to exploit it. Yes, I do think it would fix it without removing the most important parts of capitalism. I don't think it's foolproof. I think I'd like this to be discussed more in the general public about how it could be exploited, but I think it is the only way to save capitalism.

(03-28-2023, 11:24 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-28-2023, 08:06 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]At the very root of our widespread prosperity, the driving force that gives us all the neat stuff we have, from cell phones to pro football franchises, is the desire for money and power.  So sometimes rich people have it better than poor people.  That's why people want to get rich.  And people wanting to get rich is why we have the level of prosperity that we have.   

You can't get money out of politics, anyway.  We have free speech.  Any rich person can buy a newspaper or TV station and say whatever they want.  Unless you want to repeal the First Amendment.

Let's never change, then. This system is broken and getting worse. Sure, at one point, before the elites completely captured our government, this system was prosperous, now it's smoke and mirrors. You want to ride this train to the last stop, even though it's starting to come off the rails. Ayn Rand's "greed is good" only works in any system until the greedy figure out how to exploit it. We hit that point in the 80's, and it's been a slow march towards the death of capitalism ever since. 

EVEN WORSE, you bury your head in the sand as the capitalists TELL YOU they are changing capitalism. They tell you they are buying governments. They tell you they are using them to shape the society how they want. And they are telling you it's going to benefit you. What's the result? We're losing our rights and our prosperity to stakeholder "capitalism." Who are the stakeholders? Why is that even a thing?

First of all, there has never been a time when the people you describe as "elites" did not have an outsized amount of influence in our government.  That's just the way the world works.  

Secondly, I don't understand your statement about stakeholder capitalism.  I know what stakeholder capitalism is, but I don't understand why you see it as anything significant.

Influence and control are different things. Furthermore, competition between elites' self interest was supposed to mitigate their impact. That's all changed in the last 30 years. There is more cooperation than ever among their ranks. They are consolidating power and wealth.

I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to type out everything about stakeholder capitalism, but who are the stakeholders?

Stakeholder capitalism is just marketing and PR.  Sometimes it gives them cover to openly do the political interference they were already covertly doing.  Sometimes, rarely, it changes which side of the issue they are on.  But they are still interfering.  And I think we would rather corporations did not interfere at all in politics.  If we could chose,  but I don't think we can.

That said, corporate leadership should absolutely look beyond "maximum shareholder value." If you only look at shareholder value, in the short term, you have a pyramid scheme.  And in the long term you have the same problem all other abstract business strategies have: you can't predict the future.  And there is no "just right" medium between the two.  You have to bring in other principles : "worker happiness" "rainy day fund" "sustainability" "future tastes" etc, for maximum shareholder value to even make sense.

You believing that stakeholder capitalism is just marketing and PR is marketing and PR. I know most of us don't have time to follow what these guys are saying and doing. I don't as much as I used to, but they aren't really hiding what they want to do. Stakeholder capitalism is a movement by the elites to build a world that works for them. We will end up being the working class, and they will maintain their power and money as they decide what's best for us. Klaus's plans are supported by the major corporations. Why? "Because according to him, companies seek long-term value creation instead of short-term profits; governments cooperate to create the greatest possible prosperity for their people, and civil society and international organizations complete the stakeholder dialogue, helping balance the interests of people and the planet."

That's great if you want to be naive and pretend these elitest snobs who have no foot in the "real" world actually care about any of us as individuals. But only if you're not reading between the lines. Who makes the choices for us? Companies. Not governments. Governments cooperate with the companies plans for us. And we have to believe they are just going to generously give us wealth so that we can live fulfilling lives like them. Please, bro. The stakeholders are the ruling capitalists, that bend us to their will for our own good. They are benevolent slave owners. Every single new law they pass is like a ratchet that is slowly stripping us of our individual rights, identity, and customs. Sorry you and Marty are too idealistic to see it for what it is.

Yes. We can do something about it, and it starts by not throwing your hands up in the air and resigning yourself to your fate. Start recognizing it for what it is and share it with others.

(03-28-2023, 07:15 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You believing that stakeholder capitalism is just marketing and PR is marketing and PR. I know most of us don't have time to follow what these guys are saying and doing. I don't as much as I used to, but they aren't really hiding what they want to do. Stakeholder capitalism is a movement by the elites to build a world that works for them. We will end up being the working class, and they will maintain their power and money as they decide what's best for us. Klaus's plans are supported by the major corporations. Why? "Because according to him, companies seek long-term value creation instead of short-term profits; governments cooperate to create the greatest possible prosperity for their people, and civil society and international organizations complete the stakeholder dialogue, helping balance the interests of people and the planet."

That's great if you want to be naive and pretend these elitest snobs who have no foot in the "real" world actually care about any of us as individuals. But only if you're not reading between the lines. Who makes the choices for us? Companies. Not governments. Governments cooperate with the companies plans for us. And we have to believe they are just going to generously give us wealth so that we can live fulfilling lives like them. Please, bro. The stakeholders are the ruling capitalists, that bend us to their will for our own good. They are benevolent slave owners. Every single new law they pass is like a ratchet that is slowly stripping us of our individual rights, identity, and customs. Sorry you and Marty are too idealistic to see it for what it is.

Yes. We can do something about it, and it starts by not throwing your hands up in the air and resigning yourself to your fate. Start recognizing it for what it is and share it with others.

It's not that I'm too idealistic to see it for what it is.  I've always seen it for what it is.  You act like you've discovered something no one else can see.  

"Stakeholder capitalism is a movement by the elites to build a world that works for them."  Well, what the hell is new about that?  That's been going on for millions of years.  

The world has ALWAYS been driven by the desire for money and power.  That's the way it is, and frankly, that's the way it ought to be.  The desire for money and power is what has given us everything we have.   Without that desire for money and power, we'd all be working our own little farms, scratching out some sort of survival, eating potatoes or whatever.  

Here is a definition of "stakeholder capitalism."  
Stakeholder capitalism is[b] a system or an ideology in which corporations serve or take into account the interests or needs of all their stakeholders, not just shareholders.[/b] Stakeholders include customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, local communities, and society at large. Stakeholder capitalism aims to create long-term value or work toward a primary goal or mission that benefits all stakeholders.  

I agree with Mike that "stakeholder capitalism" is pure PR.  Everyone is going to operate in their own self-interest (because that's the way the world works).   Companies give money to charity and various causes because it's good PR.  To the extent that companies do what's best for the various stakeholders, the real purpose is improving the bottom line.  They do nice things for workers so the workers will be more loyal and work harder.  They do nice things for the community so they don't get into political trouble.  They do nice things for society at large so people will buy more of their products.   But there's nothing wrong with that.  Corporate management has a duty to operate in the best interest of their owners, the shareholders, and if they don't do that, they'll be unemployed really quick.   

I'm never going to move the discussion forward with you or Mikey because you guys are too busy focusing on repeating what's prepared for you to consume. You can't simultaneously say that corporations will act in their self-interest, while also presenting evidence that they think we, the people, are the stakeholders. That's a joke. We are not the stakeholders. That's a lie made for stupid people to consume. You know this. You admit this. Then you say it's just the way it is. We don't need to keep seeding power to these people. They are buying our government and our officials, and you and Mikey pretend that we have a government working for us.

(03-29-2023, 09:21 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]I'm never going to move the discussion forward with you or Mikey because you guys are too busy focusing on repeating what's prepared for you to consume. You can't simultaneously say that corporations will act in their self-interest, while also presenting evidence that they think we, the people, are the stakeholders. That's a joke. We are not the stakeholders. That's a lie made for stupid people to consume. You know this. You admit this. Then you say it's just the way it is. We don't need to keep seeding power to these people. They are buying our government and our officials, and you and Mikey pretend that we have a government working for us.

Corporations act in the interests of their owners, the shareholders.  That's what they ought to be doing.  How can I be more clear?

Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

(03-29-2023, 10:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

(03-29-2023, 10:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-29-2023, 10:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What are you saying?  First you say, "Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea."  Then you say, "This is not shareholder capitalism."  Which one is it?  You seem to be saying they are faking their stakeholder capitalism, then you say they are not practicing shareholder capitalism.  Which one do you think they are actually practicing?  

I'm just trying to understand what you are saying, because you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You're a philosophical dog that chases it's own tail all day and when you finally take a break you're so spun out you can't even keep up with common sense that's been placed upon your feet. 

It's nonsensical to feed into you at this point. It's like talking to the two door riddle from the Labyrinth. 

Carry on.

(03-29-2023, 10:23 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Lol, dude. In any other scenario, you would understand that McDonalds can't buy our government and then make the laws that govern fast food industries. This is where we are. Stakeholder capitalism is the new brand being worn by companies to give credibility to this idea. The governments need to comply with their wishes for the world, not the other way around. This is a disaster waiting to happen. This is not shareholder capitalism. You know nothing of which you speak.

What policy change did McDonalds buy?

(03-27-2023, 10:24 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]CNN is promoting an clip of Fareed Zakaria interviewing Jon Stewart.  Jon nails it in my opinion, pointing out that three people have already gone to jail after working closely with Trump, and at least one of them clearly took the fall for Trump.  But he then says this is about more than Trump.  For him it's about how if you're rich enough and powerful enough in this country, you simply won't be prosecuted for crimes other than maybe rape or murder.  He says the average person knows this well, and they've been mad about it for a long time.  Stewart says that the American people were attracted to Trump in part because they thought Trump might dismantle this legal privilege that rich people clearly have. That rings true to me.
But Trump obviously wasn't willing OR able to make any progress in that area.  The phrase is overused, but I mean it literally.  If you think he was willing to dismantle elite privilege, he must not have been able.  If you think he was able to dismantle elite privilege, then he must not have been willing.  The privilege clearly remains.  And today I think it's obvious that Trump benefits from a lot of that privilege.  This Manhattan DA case is mostly BS, but what about the bank fraud? What about the fraudulent charity?  Corrine Brown went to jail for less.  But I digress.
All that said, is the remedy to all this elite impunity as simple as "get money out of politics"? If so, how do we "get money out of politics"? What are examples of places that have done this?  Is there anything to learn from state level election law?

I stand by the idea of having single item bills.  No riders, no additions, every issue goes to an up or down vote on its own merit.  I firmly believe that will remove a lot of the corruption and influence peddling as well as money at the federal level.  It will also push much of the legislation back to the state level where it belongs.