Though I guess your thinking is: we'll either have big corporations or big government and the same people will end up on the board of either. Ultimately when seeking funds we end up facing "old money" and they get a seat on the board.
Human nature being what it is, the same practices would get done in either system but at least you get the illusion of a clean-out every 4 years. Whereas to change anybody on the board of a listed company you'd need a lot of shares and, anyhow, this would be impossible in an unlisted company. It's all a question of how we change the hierarchies that intervene in our lives. So perhaps in one system there is more direct public accountability than just buying a company's produce and then making it powerful. By voting, the "court of public opinion" as FDR put it, takes a global stance on all human activity. (I'm sounding like a visitor from Mars here trying to understand humans. I'm thinking aloud.) The free market would then regard this as unwarranted intrusion in the day to day running and strategic planning of their businesses by an "elite" or mere public opinion. More importantly innovators who want to go it alone against public opinion would feel stifled in a system with large government much as say a Galileo or Kepler did in their time against the church. There again not everyone in the free-market are heroic innovators pushing boundaries but rather quite a few are grubby people benefiting from a "wild west" laissez-faire environment. It's a difficult one to square. The upshot of this is there is no utopia or nirvana for inventors. They will always have to interface with tardy people (or greater society) they despise to get permission to press ahead. Often elements out of their control will seem like fiat to the visionary. It seems then unless one is living on a desert island, politics (other people's opinion on where their boundaries start getting crossed) is inescapable and we must each choose, selfishly what pushes our own agenda. Then one must ask which system is the more innovative: free market, mixed economy, socialist? The answer would be shifting and pragmatic though is it particularly skewed to one end of the spectrum? -----Original Message----- From: Remi Cornwall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A plague on both their houses! The less government the better. Trust your constitution that's why it was written. New energy will empower people to self-reliance. -----Original Message----- From: Jones Beene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 26 September 2008 16:08 To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OFF TOPIC News of the bailout ----- Original Message ---- ... apparently Remi does not remember the infamous Keating Five - ... from the net, a little "refresher" lesson in how recent political history has this nagging tendency to repeat itself every new generation: John McCain & The Ghost of Keating Five posted last week by Ari Berman Back in the 1980s, when the US faced a major savings & loan crisis, John McCain intervened to protect S&L magnate Charles Keating - a major McCain donor and friend--from federal regulators. McCain was later rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for "poor judgement" and embarrassed by the $112,000 in campaign contributions, trips and gifts he accepted from Keating. Following the entanglement, McCain became a born-again reformer and tried to scrub the Keating episode from his resume. http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters/361711/john_mccain_the_ghost_ of_keating_five In fact - it has been reported that Wiki was under intense pressure from McCain operatives when the "new" S&L Scandal become issue numeror uno in the public's view - to have the pictures removed from the Wiki entry ... IOW even if they knew they could not rewrite the history of the indent (but were able to tone down some of the rhetoric) they did not want the actual "picture" of McCain there - as apparently that was too inflamatory !!! ... or else some of the expected McCain supporters don't read much but are impressed with visual images?
