Retrotech68
Established
Dear Michael,
So do I. Prospects look grim, but I sincerely hope for the same as you and Roger.
Cheers,
Alex
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Dennis,
I don't think we are disagreeing at all here, and this is down purely to sloppy writing on my part, for which I apologize. I used "we" to mean "society", rather than sane individuals. For sane individuals, I agree with every word you wrote. But I'd argue that society today is biased in favour of what you /(or I, or many others) might regard as insanity.
Cheers,
R.
denizg7
-
Dear Roger,
Then I apologize for not understanding you well enough.. I remember Mitt Romney campaigning in a coal workers town and there was a video of him touring his house and stuff. And he was saying , You can be rich like me and he was trying so hard to relate to them.. This was a foreign thing for most of the individuals there because they did not actually want this..
Anyway thanks for clearing it up Roger , I misjudged you so I apologize
zauhar
Mentor
This thread has gotten very interesting. I want to say that while I strongly agree with most of you, and strongly disagree with a few, I suspect that I would like all of you if provided the chance to meet in person.
It occurs to me that there exists a relatively straightforward mechanism to improve the situation with regard to personal integrity and commitment in business - namely, put in place significant impediments to the formation of public corporations.
Private companies can be big - big enough to manage railroads, aircraft manufacture, etc. There is no scale of operation that is off limits to a private company. Private companies are lured to go public with the promise of easy capital, but they risk losing control, losing focus, losing their "soul". Private companies can receive investment funds , and do so every day.
Apple is a public corporation, but with Steve Jobs at the helm it had the flavor of a private company. Jobs was an autocrat, but he cared deeply about what he had built. Before Jobs returned, Apple was almost run into oblivion by a string of clueless CEOs, not unlike the hated Perez.
The first objection to this proposal is that it will disrupt our glorious "ownership society". To that, I respond: B-llsh-t. I have 401K (it is all that is available at my university), and for all I know I "own" some piece of General Motors. So what? All it means is that GM has money from me, and I have no control in return. Believe me, I would have been better off if all my retirement money were invested in a whole life insurance policy with a guaranteed 6% return. ;-(
The other objection is that promoting private companies also promotes the creation of enormous personal fortunes, like in the age of the Robber Barons. But, what exactly is different today? The CEOs who mange public corporations seem to have got the system down pat where they get their 'nut' for the Winter, and screw the rest of us. And we already have private hedge fund managers worth billions (putting an end to them is another issue).
Randy
It occurs to me that there exists a relatively straightforward mechanism to improve the situation with regard to personal integrity and commitment in business - namely, put in place significant impediments to the formation of public corporations.
Private companies can be big - big enough to manage railroads, aircraft manufacture, etc. There is no scale of operation that is off limits to a private company. Private companies are lured to go public with the promise of easy capital, but they risk losing control, losing focus, losing their "soul". Private companies can receive investment funds , and do so every day.
Apple is a public corporation, but with Steve Jobs at the helm it had the flavor of a private company. Jobs was an autocrat, but he cared deeply about what he had built. Before Jobs returned, Apple was almost run into oblivion by a string of clueless CEOs, not unlike the hated Perez.
The first objection to this proposal is that it will disrupt our glorious "ownership society". To that, I respond: B-llsh-t. I have 401K (it is all that is available at my university), and for all I know I "own" some piece of General Motors. So what? All it means is that GM has money from me, and I have no control in return. Believe me, I would have been better off if all my retirement money were invested in a whole life insurance policy with a guaranteed 6% return. ;-(
The other objection is that promoting private companies also promotes the creation of enormous personal fortunes, like in the age of the Robber Barons. But, what exactly is different today? The CEOs who mange public corporations seem to have got the system down pat where they get their 'nut' for the Winter, and screw the rest of us. And we already have private hedge fund managers worth billions (putting an end to them is another issue).
Randy
Merumeni
Established
Dear Roger,
I strongly doubt that this is the correct way of dealing with the situation: it may be that there are too many young academics - and in most countries there is a strong need for skilled craftsmen instead - but you can hardly tell them that there is no need for them. Neither can you send them back into their mother's womb.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
All very true, but on the other hand, "no man is an island": we are all products of the society in which we are born and brought up. If a society has a deliberate policy of turning out large numbers of people who are 'qualified' in a field where there will never be enough employment -- darts players, as it might be, or photographers -- then there are too many darts players or photographers being produced by the universities, colleges and training schools.
The problem with a surfeit of academics is that the debate is driven, to a large extent, by academics with a blind faith that the academic route is the best for all, which clearly is not the case. Then (with apologies for the pun) all that is needed is for academics to act in their own class interest.
Cheers,
R.
Merumeni
Established
Very interesting remark, because it emphasizes the return of two concepts I thought we had been overcome in the meantime:
1) the call for / importance of a strong regulating "state" and / or social engineering institutions and
2) the return of the "class" with its own interest and conscience.
Both are lethal for our actual understanding of the society serving the common wealth and a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
Yet the question what to do with the masses of your highly skilled but unemployed "dart-players" is still waiting for an answer: you described the reasons why there is an abundance of not needed dart-players. The challenge though is to find new ways, rooms, perspectives and possibilities. (I do not expect all of this coming from you personally.)
Sparrow
Mentor
Have you considered that the EU has a lot in common with the League of Nations? in the 1920s and 30s it was French intransigence towards German's financial position which fuelled the growth of National Socialism there, in much the same way that German intransigence towards Greece is fuelling extremism in Greece at the moment.
I feel the EUs inability to take the lead politicly due to it's lack of democratic mandate is very similar to the League's inability to curb French demands for reparation in 1930 ... I worry we are making the same mistake again.
In common with Michael I actually joined the EEC ... it morphed into the EU without my permission or agreement.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
I am now greatly confused. First, 'state' and 'society' are nothing like the same thing. On the other hand, 'society' IS, in its very nature, a social engineering institution: it is a mixture of the zeitgeist and of manipulation by special interest groups (including academics).
Second, 'class' in this context means 'a group' (hence the apology for the pun). Academics as a group are obviously interested in the perpetuation of academia, whether as a deliberate choice or as a failure to think of alternatives.
Third, there are only two ways to deal with the surfeit of dart players. One is to keep them on the dole. The other is to find them other jobs. I do not see either option as an existential challenge in the way of "new ways, rooms, perspectives and possibilities".
There are, after all, two questions here. One is how to deal with the current excess of supply over demand in 'young academics', and I'd suggest that 'academics' is essentially a red herring. After all, why should it matter whether someone without a job is an academic, a labourer, or a qualified hairdresser? All three still need a job. The second question (much simpler, in my view) concerns what we should do about the surfeit in future. The answer, surely, is to stop feeding young people the lie that formal education or even training is the sole route to success, and to stop wasting their time and stealing their money by forcing them to study at universities and colleges if they don't want to. Or indeed, failing to warn them that if they study certain subjects, they may amuse themselves for a few years but they will not be doing anything that necessarily leads to employment.
Finally, why did you "not expect all of this coming from [me] personally"?
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Stewart,
Para 1: Absolutely.
Para 2: Or, to take a position almost diametrically opposite, the EU is crippled by the narrow interests of obsolescent, xenophobic, jingoistic and often unjustifiably self-satisfied nation-states who are unwilling to give up even an iota of power for the common good.
Cheers,
R.
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
They may proclaim their lack of greed whilst wearing sackcloth and showering their (expensively cut) hair with ashes. I do not believe that will alter the observation that they are taking far too large a slice of the cake.
tbhv55
Well-known
Bold highlight above: It's difficult to see how this particular aspect can be rectified, as voter turnout tends to be notoriously (and stubbornly) low. Look at the recent UK Police Commissioner debacle: turnout 14.9%. It seems that people want to grumble amongst themselves about governments, public institutions etc., but can't be bothered to turn out in numbers to have their say. No-one can seriously claim that such tiny-minority turnouts provide a "democratic mandate".
I take a rather different view on the EU from yours. I see the EU as a potential force for good. It's certainly still a good distance from realising that potential, but I MUCH prefer it to the alternative.
Michael Markey
Mentor
Dear Roger
I`ll try not to slaver or drool then
Two strands to this discussion.
The salient point here being greed and societies seeming inability to bring any meaningful pressure to bear or curb the power with which it is so often associated.
The Eu is an exemplar in this regard being both greedy and wasteful and undemocratic.
At least the shareholders in Kodak could dismiss Perez should they so choose.
Neither have I ever been given an opportunity to vote on this brave new society thats been foisted on me.
On the few occasions when the EU has tried to demonstrate its democratic credentials it has simply called for another vote when it didn`t like the result of the first.
The EU "budget" has not been signed off for 17 years.
By this measure Kodak and Perez seem a model of probity.
The other strand runs ...all this is justified it if prevents a war.
Politicains have been frightening the population like this for years in order to gain more control for themselves.
Indeed you hinted as much yourself in the thread about photographing on the London underground.
That argument holds no water for me.
The premise is as false as the conclusion .
What strikes me in all this is that although people get exercised about an individual acting in this way they seem perfectly content to let a body such as the EU do the same provided it complies with what they see as their best interest.
I suspect Kodak shareholders feel much the same.
Best
Michael
I`ll try not to slaver or drool then
Two strands to this discussion.
The salient point here being greed and societies seeming inability to bring any meaningful pressure to bear or curb the power with which it is so often associated.
The Eu is an exemplar in this regard being both greedy and wasteful and undemocratic.
At least the shareholders in Kodak could dismiss Perez should they so choose.
Neither have I ever been given an opportunity to vote on this brave new society thats been foisted on me.
On the few occasions when the EU has tried to demonstrate its democratic credentials it has simply called for another vote when it didn`t like the result of the first.
The EU "budget" has not been signed off for 17 years.
By this measure Kodak and Perez seem a model of probity.
The other strand runs ...all this is justified it if prevents a war.
Politicains have been frightening the population like this for years in order to gain more control for themselves.
Indeed you hinted as much yourself in the thread about photographing on the London underground.
That argument holds no water for me.
The premise is as false as the conclusion .
What strikes me in all this is that although people get exercised about an individual acting in this way they seem perfectly content to let a body such as the EU do the same provided it complies with what they see as their best interest.
I suspect Kodak shareholders feel much the same.
Best
Michael
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Blame your government and political parties - the lack of power of the European Parliament is due to the national governments (ALL national governments, though the British are worst by a fair margin) refusal to transfer any power from the Commission with its national veto system to the more democratic and egalitarian European institutions.
Roger Hicks
Mentor
Dear Michael,Dear Roger
I`ll try not to slaver or drool then
Two strands to this discussion.
The salient point here being greed and societies seeming inability to bring any meaningful pressure to bear or curb the power with which it is so often associated.
The Eu is an exemplar in this regard being both greedy and wasteful and undemocratic.
At least the shareholders in Kodak could dismiss Perez should they so choose.
Neither have I ever been given an opportunity to vote on this brave new society thats been foisted on me.
On the few occasions when the EU has tried to demonstrate its democratic credentials it has simply called for another vote when it didn`t like the result of the first.
The EU "budget" has not been signed off for 17 years.
By this measure Kodak and Perez seem a model of probity.
The other strand runs ...all this is justified it if prevents a war.
Politicains have been frightening the population like this for years in order to gain more control for themselves.
Indeed you hinted as much yourself in the thread about photographing on the London underground.
That argument holds no water for me.
The premise is as false as the conclusion .
What strikes me in all this is that although people get exercised about an individual acting in this way they seem perfectly content to let a body such as the EU do the same provided it complies with what they see as their best interest.
I suspect Kodak shareholders feel much the same.
Best
Michael
Highlight: This one must of course be on the balance of probability. I take one view, perhaps influenced by the fact that both my grandfathers were killed in WW2. You take another.
Cheers,
R.
Michael Markey
Mentor
That is not a justification to end democracy unless you live in a lawless state.
I take a very different view namely that it is a force for discord.
But then I don`t regard nationality and the right to retain sovereign powers as a pejorative.
To state the case again ...we joined a trading group not a political grouping that seeks to dominate by the back door.
Best Michael
Michael Markey
Mentor
Sejanus.Aelianus
Mentor
I think you may have put your finger directly on the cancererous spot.
I have long believed that the only good form of government is a jury system. Elect an executive by compulsory voting, then make the executive entirely subject to a large jury of randomly selected draftees, one from each identified constituency. Each jury sits for a day and their decisions are final.
Hang on, that sounds awfully like real government by the people, for the people, doesn't it?
Never going to happen...
Last edited:
Michael Markey
Mentor
Dear Sevo
Given the EUs track record for ignoring democratic votes I fail to see what else one can do.
Why on earth would we want to transfer any power anywhere apart from back to our own elected Parliament and legislature.
There , now I`m drooling again
Michael
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
There is no one "the EU" that can follow or ignore democratic votes, it is the commission and the parliament - the former elected indirectly, the latter even elected immediately. I know that the British tabloids feel that the EU ought by rights be something like a small version of the British Empire, with the Queen the sovereign ruler of the EU - but that is rather a unpopular notion in the rest of Europe...