Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (116544)	5/27/2005 10:04:08 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793834

Reading these questions, one would have the opinion that corporations do no good at all. Corporations, like people in society, need to be held accountable and policed when necessary. But the truth is that corporations are the economic life blood of our society. Providing products, jobs, and economic freedom, most corporations are model contributors to society. Let's take a look at some of the anti-business questions in the survey. If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of transnational corporations. A false dichotomy. The interests of corporations and the interests of humanity are almost never divergent over the long run. In a free market, which the question presupposes, a corporation cannot survive if it is not offering its customers value. There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. Hard to say why the surveyors included this question. I suppose some worry about mixing information with entertainment, but it appeared to me they were looking to take a shot at TV news magazine shows? Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Good question, yet it should have been inverted, "Controlling unemployment is more important than controlling inflation." Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. Poor (slanted) construction. What the respondent agrees or disagrees with is whether regulation is required. But the faulty premise of the question is that corporations can't be trusted. It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. Again, a waste question, apparently designed simply to take a shot at business and commerce. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. The false premises of the question are that it's simple to manipulate money (it isn't) and that such manipulation contributes nothing (wrong). The respondent is asked to agree or disagree with whether these facts are regrettable. Absurd. Ironic that the above mentioned controlling of inflation (a manipulation of money) is directly related to unemployment (societal contribution). The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. A question seems designed to elicit a preponderance of responses in a single answer category. Wasted question. Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care. Another way of wording this question is "the rich should be denied the best medical care." Enough said. Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. They already do. It's another question which leads the respondent to a specific answer. A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. What is a "predator" multinational? Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by artists who simply manipulate taxpayer money and contribute nothing to their society. I have to stop now... but I hope you get the picture. -g-

To: Lane3 who wrote (116544)	5/27/2005 10:59:34 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793834

This is the one that bugged me: >>A significant advantage of a one party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.<< That statement is objectively true, so true you could call it a fact. If you were analyzing pros and cons on one-party states, that particular advantage would be at the top of the list. There's no way anyone could legitimately disagree. It seems to me that the real question they're trying to ask is whether one thinks that that advantage outweighs the disadvantages, but they're not framing it correctly. Ditto here. I finally decided to place the emphasis on "progress" (I couldn't figure out what emphasis the authors intended), in which case the question became whether "progress" carried moral connotations or not.

To: Lane3 who wrote (116544)	5/28/2005 1:47:06 AM
From: KLP	Respond to of 793834

Page 2 is the section to which I was referring... also see that several others had some wonderful responses too.... Page 2 of 6 People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. From each according to his ability, to each according to his need is a fundamentally good idea. It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold. It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. The rich are too highly taxed. Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. The freer the market, the freer the people.