4 ms·

> A failure of both democracy and capitalism. What are you talking about? It was the Californian governing body that isn't allowing developers to build new ch

> A failure of both democracy and capitalism. What are you talking about? It was the Californian governing body that isn't allowing developers to build new cheap homes and apartments, because of NIMBY. And at the same time, everyone is talking about the evil tech giants, so they are trying to look good. If they would just be left alone, they might spend their resources on - oh, I dont know - making cheaper and better phones so that more people around them world could afford them?

themaninthedark 7y ago
I would argue that the Californian governing body that is obstructing new homes is a failure of democracy. Civic leadership has a responsibility to cultivate a sustainable community, not just appeal to populist ideas and short term or selfish interests. If California allow Apple and other companies to step in, take control and solve the various crises, that is a vast step backward for democracy as you loose your ability to hold the those with power accountable. For now companies are aiming to fix housing, fairly benign but in the future will they attempt to tackle education? Crime? Even without jumping straight to private police forces run by companies without accountability, think about how a large donation of grant could influence the police force. I have read stories of how Steve Jobs was an asshole and blocked handicap parking spaces because he wanted to and the reaction by the authorities was that he brings in jobs so it was acceptable. Even if the story is false it show the power the companies already wield in the area and it can be abused even further. I for one do NOT welcome corporate overlords.
- tkyjonathan 7y ago
  Not to get into a protracted argument, but I do not see this as democracy (or capitalism). I see this as socialist top-down elements in a mixed economy. As a comparison, you have councils (or soviets) deciding for people, how they conduct their economic activity - in this case, not allowing them to build apartments on land they own. If you are hoping for a top-down control AND it be enlightened for-the-people AND democratically given this control, then you are looking at the wrong governing model. Especially, if you don't believe that top-down won't benefit at some point tiny interest groups.

themaninthedark 7y ago

I would argue that the Californian governing body that is obstructing new homes is a failure of democracy. Civic leadership has a responsibility to cultivate a sustainable community, not just appeal to populist ideas and short term or selfish interests. If California allow Apple and other companies to step in, take control and solve the various crises, that is a vast step backward for democracy as you loose your ability to hold the those with power accountable. For now companies are aiming to fix housing, fairly benign but in the future will they attempt to tackle education? Crime? Even without jumping straight to private police forces run by companies without accountability, think about how a large donation of grant could influence the police force. I have read stories of how Steve Jobs was an asshole and blocked handicap parking spaces because he wanted to and the reaction by the authorities was that he brings in jobs so it was acceptable. Even if the story is false it show the power the companies already wield in the area and it can be abused even further. I for one do NOT welcome corporate overlords.

tkyjonathan 7y ago
Not to get into a protracted argument, but I do not see this as democracy (or capitalism). I see this as socialist top-down elements in a mixed economy. As a comparison, you have councils (or soviets) deciding for people, how they conduct their economic activity - in this case, not allowing them to build apartments on land they own. If you are hoping for a top-down control AND it be enlightened for-the-people AND democratically given this control, then you are looking at the wrong governing model. Especially, if you don't believe that top-down won't benefit at some point tiny interest groups.