4 ms·
"and shareholders who care more about profits than morals." Well, I don't know what your prejudices about shareholders are, but I know a few of them and they r
by forgottenpaswrd 13y ago
"and shareholders who care more about profits than morals."
Well, I don't know what your prejudices about shareholders are, but I know a few of them and they really care about morals, probably much more than average Joe.
Anyway, making a super State that controls everything goes against shareholder's interest as history shows the first thing super states do is eliminate competitors altogether.
You know Mr Adolf Hitler asked again for more business contributions to his party. They were angry to be asked again so they put a condition in place: "Only if you don't ask again in a long time". Hitler smiled and say:" Don't worry, it is the last time I ask you for contributions."
It was.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago1.) "shareholders who care more about profits than morals" != "shareholders care more about profits than morals" 2.) Nazism != fascism. (And even Nazism "worked" for some Nazi industrials for a while, if you will). Mussolini: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Chomsky: "Governments have a defect, they're potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect, they're pure tyrannies." So yeah, it's great that corporations don't want anyone who could possibly stop them in their undertakings. Actual people on the other hand would do well to restrict both government and corporations. That is, we should make them in our image, not the other way around.