In post 1608, Formerfish wrote:In post 1517, Formerfish wrote:When we think about adventure stories one of the first races to be demagogued and maligned are the Orcs, and it is true that in most cases those accusations were correct and they were the ones perpetrating the evil done unto the rest of the realm.
However, there have been many times in the history of the word that speak of Orcs who have turned their backs upon the warmongering of their ancestors and set out on their own to make names for themselves. And when that expression is being used in this case it is meant literally. Orcs have no need for names and in their culture they do not use them. You know who your Alpha is and you know what rung you are in the pecking order by birth. Some have grown to hate and despise the path they are upon and leave all they have known behind to find fame and fortune one way or the other. Many become mercenaries selling their skills to the ones who will supply them with all they never had at home. Others become heros, wandering this way and that trying to undo all the damage the Orc legacy carries.
The most successful are the ones who instead of rejecting their past and the inherent violence that is so intrinsic to the natural way of the Orc, these few embrace that rage. They harness the fire that burns inside of them for the atrocities that both sides have wrought upon each other over thousands of years, and for what? An age old feud that not a single living soul can explain beyond Orcs are evil and must be killed. These few have the ability to show exactly why children wake up in sweats during nightmares, diving into the deepest and darkest part of each of us. They show us in an ugly mirror just what kind of evil ugliness can live inside a person, we make them everything we hate about ourselves, and for this we love to see them fight for us. Better than any bare knuckle match, more real than a back alley brawl. These Gladiators have names that ring bells across lands that haven't even been discovered yet, word traveling faster than foot or sail.
Formerfish, TrueSoulEnergy, Chennisden, Let our names call out to the Gods and seek favor from them, for tonight one of us dines in hell.
Challange: TrueSoulEnergy and ChennisdenTo bring this to the current page since we are getting action here and it's getting buried.In post 1521, chkflip wrote:
I may have missed some no governor votes since the last count. I'm busy and on my phone.
Mainstream Mafia II: D&D Edition [FIN]
Forum rules
- Formerfish
-
Formerfish Busboy Revolutionary
- Formerfish
- Busboy Revolutionary
- Busboy Revolutionary
- Posts: 12855
- Joined: July 1, 2013
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Show"Getting lost in the details of nothing..."
"FF, you're a dick, but you don't hit below the belt. So you're a dick about finding scum, not hurting the people who are playing the game. That's acceptable dickary." MaryJoLisa
Need advice? Ask a Fish.- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
I mean I think that the optimal system is probably sortition based on demographics with a third of the legislative body changing every 2 years or less and the executive branch being limited and selected from that number. I think the current situation of the world is a plenty strong indictment of leaving a select group of people to govern things.In post 1669, Creature wrote:
Would you accept a country ran by 50% of the people being Trump supporters willing to call illegal immigrants dangerous people? Not everybody is fit to govern something, hence why we trust a few select people to run something.In post 1659, Menalque wrote:
Right, but who is making the decisions about where the money goes? Just because companies decide on reinvestment to try and seek greater future profits doesn’t change the fact that the direction of those profits and control over them is by a tiny number of individuals, very often.In post 1655, Creature wrote:
Profits usually go to the company itself already, if it makes 300 billion in a year it doesn't go to the CEO's pockets directly, but is rather saved for future company plans.In post 1646, Menalque wrote:
Why can you not have a relatively free market but where workers are the owners of businesses and therefore receive profits directly?In post 1640, Creature wrote:If you remove the free market it's bye bye social programs together
Though, lately the pyramid is being inverted so the CEO gotta work for his/her executives, who gotta work for their managers, who gotta work for their workers. It's like reverse hierarchy. Someone needs to have an overview of the system to tell others where to go next.
And I mean if the pyramid is inverted in a way that is actually binding then I have no objection to that as an intermediary stage.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
In post 1676, Menalque wrote:
I mean I think that the optimal system is probably sortition based on demographics with a third of the legislative body changing every 2 years or less and the executive branch being limited and selected from that number. I think the current situation of the world is a plenty strong indictment of leaving a select group of people to govern things.In post 1669, Creature wrote:
Would you accept a country ran by 50% of the people being Trump supporters willing to call illegal immigrants dangerous people? Not everybody is fit to govern something, hence why we trust a few select people to run something.In post 1659, Menalque wrote:
Right, but who is making the decisions about where the money goes? Just because companies decide on reinvestment to try and seek greater future profits doesn’t change the fact that the direction of those profits and control over them is by a tiny number of individuals, very often.In post 1655, Creature wrote:
Profits usually go to the company itself already, if it makes 300 billion in a year it doesn't go to the CEO's pockets directly, but is rather saved for future company plans.In post 1646, Menalque wrote:
Why can you not have a relatively free market but where workers are the owners of businesses and therefore receive profits directly?In post 1640, Creature wrote:If you remove the free market it's bye bye social programs together
Though, lately the pyramid is being inverted so the CEO gotta work for his/her executives, who gotta work for their managers, who gotta work for their workers. It's like reverse hierarchy. Someone needs to have an overview of the system to tell others where to go next.
And I mean if the pyramid is inverted in a way that is actually binding then I have no objection to that as an intermediary stage.
I'd agree the hierarchy being viewed like this would actually make the higher-paid positions less arrogantSigh- Donempire
-
Donempire No prefMafia Scum
- Donempire
No pref- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2953
- Joined: September 18, 2015
- Pronoun: No pref
- Location: Far Away
I understand. What i meant was the person who initially started the business, not someone who then replaced him to make the decisions like is the case with disney and other old corporations.In post 1671, Menalque wrote:
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a satisfactory answer, and it certainly isn’t for the level of discrepancy that we have in income/wealth between different people in a business.In post 1665, Donempire wrote:
Because of the risk they took doing it. A menial laborer knows what hes getting at the end of the month. Someone putting all their chips onto a new fad doesnt.In post 1662, Menalque wrote:
I never said that it was. But without the workers there wouldn’t be a company. Why does what the CEO do merit a greater reward than them?In post 1658, Creature wrote:I think there's credit based on amount of skills and effort needed
Being CEO isn't simply sitting in a chair and watching your workers struggle
Fundamentally, the business would not be profitable without people doing the day to day of selling or working. If you have a business that is profitable because 100 cleaners clean 10 houses each a day for £10 per house to the business, and the cleaners get paid £50 per day while the CEO makes £5000 a day, you have a situation where the value creation is not going to the people actually creating it.
Sure theres wealth inequity there but the example you gsve is very extreme and it isnt what im supporting, more like 50 for the workers and 200 for the ceo for example. It isnt just sitting in a chair either, everything the cleaner does is basically predetermined once he/she chooses the job and it doesnt extend from that.
A ceo has to make decisions on behalf of the whole corporation and on where it is going, handle the legal stuff, is responsible for the behaviour of everyone under his wing, and more while the cleaners only responsibility is cleaning. When you look at it this way ceos definitely deserve more, just not a 1/100 cut like you said.Age of Empires Elo: 1500 something in DE, 1800 in HD
Formerly Dongempire- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
- Donempire
-
Donempire No prefMafia Scum
- Donempire
No pref- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2953
- Joined: September 18, 2015
- Pronoun: No pref
- Location: Far Away
Dont know how to reply to this. I dont think i was able to convey what i meant properly, which was that everyone who works at low end jobs dont like the job for what it is.In post 1668, Menalque wrote:
I mean most people have to work to survive. If we were meeting everyone’s basic material needs, what do you think is going to happen? There aren’t going to be any more artists/designers/sports players/inventors?In post 1664, Donempire wrote:
Because it is. Besides maybe tech people ta the top, artists, and basically professionals most peole work for money. Thats maybe %10 of the population once you add in people who have a dream job AND have got it. Also people are simply unqualified to do their dream jobs and they resort to menial labor that they dont care about. How % of amazon workers actually enjoy theie jobs for example?In post 1654, Menalque wrote:
Why do we assume that the primary motive of people would be making as much money as possible in a future system? Why is it assumed people would only be productive for salary?
Anyway, point is, most people are lazy and will try to get people to work fkr them.
How many inventions came about from people clearly knowing what they wanted to create vs tinkering and fucking around and accidentally creating something of immense value?Age of Empires Elo: 1500 something in DE, 1800 in HD
Formerly Dongempire- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
Okay, grand, but why does the fact that this has proved to help companies by providing an effective system mean that altruism wouldn’t work beyond 9 people, which is what I think your original argument was when you brought this guy up. If I’m wrong and you were saying something else, I’m listening.In post 1672, Creature wrote:
Well, he noticed the companies needed a more flexible system and designed something for it. Many companies have benefitted a lot from that system.In post 1667, Menalque wrote:What is his background?
I don't really see the problem, but if I build a company myself, I don't want to see myself stripped from my powers and/or see it bankrupt to an incompetent leader. I think it's like a house, you can't just share it with anyone.And I mean, okay, but I’m not really saying that you can’t have temporary leaders for certain tasks. It’s not like football under socialism suddenly don’t have a captain. But having temporary leaders for certain tasks is very different from entrenched hierarchies.
And I don’t think a company is the same thing as a house at all. A house is very much a limited space, that operates principally in private. A company is an organisation that (as things stand) can grow almost limitlessly. Monopoly laws should stop it, but since their redefinition a while ago regulators are doing a terrible job.
Also, the point is that companies shouldn’t be having just one indefinite leader. There should be someone chosen as leader from within the company, by those who work there. If your hypothetical company was doing great then surely people would want you to keep running it? If it started to run into trouble, they might want a change. I think it’s also wrong to assume that one person is gonna be the right fit for running a company like this all the time, and that you couldn’t have general strategy chosen by the workers who then also elect someone to do the executive part of organising things.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
As I said, you're free to try a democratic enterprise and I don't mind the state giving it a help, but I also want the chance to raise my own enterprise without seeing it being taken away from me because popular vote (social skills is not the equivalent for professional skills) and being completely changed to something I dislike.
Raising an enterprise is like raising a child. I wouldn't mind paying extra for the workers, but I don't want to lose the enterprise.Sigh- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
But the world we’re in is one where CEOs do make significantly more than 100 times what the average worker makes. Also, if you allow businesses to be run collectively, that takes a significant amount of strain off the CEO, making their job easier. For instance, if everyone in the business is coming together to vote on what the long term strategy and where it should be going is, then life is easier for the CEO, who then only has to help implement that.In post 1679, Donempire wrote:
I understand. What i meant was the person who initially started the business, not someone who then replaced him to make the decisions like is the case with disney and other old corporations.In post 1671, Menalque wrote:
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a satisfactory answer, and it certainly isn’t for the level of discrepancy that we have in income/wealth between different people in a business.In post 1665, Donempire wrote:
Because of the risk they took doing it. A menial laborer knows what hes getting at the end of the month. Someone putting all their chips onto a new fad doesnt.In post 1662, Menalque wrote:
I never said that it was. But without the workers there wouldn’t be a company. Why does what the CEO do merit a greater reward than them?In post 1658, Creature wrote:I think there's credit based on amount of skills and effort needed
Being CEO isn't simply sitting in a chair and watching your workers struggle
Fundamentally, the business would not be profitable without people doing the day to day of selling or working. If you have a business that is profitable because 100 cleaners clean 10 houses each a day for £10 per house to the business, and the cleaners get paid £50 per day while the CEO makes £5000 a day, you have a situation where the value creation is not going to the people actually creating it.
Sure theres wealth inequity there but the example you gsve is very extreme and it isnt what im supporting, more like 50 for the workers and 200 for the ceo for example. It isnt just sitting in a chair either, everything the cleaner does is basically predetermined once he/she chooses the job and it doesnt extend from that.
A ceo has to make decisions on behalf of the whole corporation and on where it is going, handle the legal stuff, is responsible for the behaviour of everyone under his wing, and more while the cleaners only responsibility is cleaning. When you look at it this way ceos definitely deserve more, just not a 1/100 cut like you said.
But besides this, why not let people dexide for themselves? If all businesses were owned by their workers, and the CEO really did do a harder job than the average worker, why are we so quick to assume that people would not be reasonable about this? I don’t see why it’s more likely that everyone would say “nah, fuck you, you’re doing something harder but you get nothing for it” rather than “okay, your job is a bit harder, why don’t you make X multiplier in whatever the base salary is that we all make”. And again, I think this would be a much more likely outcome in a world which had transitioned to a socialist economy and was in the process of a values transition.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
It's how far cooperations can go. The Scrum system also says that division of tasks is improductive and I assume that will happen if the companies become 2000+ workers "cooperating".In post 1682, Menalque wrote:Okay, grand, but why does the fact that this has proved to help companies by providing an effective system mean that altruism wouldn’t work beyond 9 people, which is what I think your original argument was when you brought this guy up. If I’m wrong and you were saying something else, I’m listening.
Well, the company is the chance for someone to get their own ideas into the society rather than have to do politics. I'd be pretty proud of owning a business and I'm willing to be a good leader. The only thing I'd need to do to keep my business is keeping it competitive (one of the requisites is happy workers).And I don’t think a company is the same thing as a house at all. A house is very much a limited space, that operates principally in private. A company is an organisation that (as things stand) can grow almost limitlessly. Monopoly laws should stop it, but since their redefinition a while ago regulators are doing a terrible job.
Is keeping your company great enough to keep you as the leader? Wrong.Also, the point is that companies shouldn’t be having just one indefinite leader. There should be someone chosen as leader from within the company, by those who work there. If your hypothetical company was doing great then surely people would want you to keep running it? If it started to run into trouble, they might want a change. I think it’s also wrong to assume that one person is gonna be the right fit for running a company like this all the time, and that you couldn’t have general strategy chosen by the workers who then also elect someone to do the executive part of organising things.
People would rather vote their friends or whoever pays a Sushi meal for them rather than their own professional skills. They definitely wouldn't want someone who would rather talk about the profession rather than someone who just talks about personal. Usually the latter are the best at fucking the company up.Sigh- Formerfish
-
Formerfish Busboy Revolutionary
- Formerfish
- Busboy Revolutionary
- Busboy Revolutionary
- Posts: 12855
- Joined: July 1, 2013
- Location: Pittsburgh, PA
A wealth tax would take care of all of this. It would allow people with innovative ideas to thrive, but would also put things in place for when they grow to big that they start getting into Bezos territory. Then they start giving back, which would slowly raise the lower and middle class towards the upper and it would stop people from going from the upper to untouchable.Show"Getting lost in the details of nothing..."
"FF, you're a dick, but you don't hit below the belt. So you're a dick about finding scum, not hurting the people who are playing the game. That's acceptable dickary." MaryJoLisa
Need advice? Ask a Fish.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
Yep, this sounds better than making leadership all about social skills over professional skills.In post 1686, Formerfish wrote:A wealth tax would take care of all of this. It would allow people with innovative ideas to thrive, but would also put things in place for when they grow to big that they start getting into Bezos territory. Then they start giving back, which would slowly raise the lower and middle class towards the upper and it would stop people from going from the upper to untouchable.Sigh- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
I just disagree that an enterprise should necessarily be seen as the property of the person who first conceived of the idea, rather than as the property of all those who put in their labour and continue to labour to make it viable.In post 1683, Creature wrote:As I said, you're free to try a democratic enterprise and I don't mind the state giving it a help, but I also want the chance to raise my own enterprise without seeing it being taken away from me because popular vote (social skills is not the equivalent for professional skills) and being completely changed to something I dislike.
Raising an enterprise is like raising a child. I wouldn't mind paying extra for the workers, but I don't want to lose the enterprise.
I think I appreciate your concerns here, but I also think you’d need a world which, as I mentioned, was moving away from capitalist values to have a complete transition to all businesses being fully cooperatively owned.
In the meantime, I want policies that move us in that direction, like workers on boards and a salary cap.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
I still want to build, raise and own my own enterprise. I'm willing to put passion into it like I would into a child, even giving my workers extra benefits. I just don't want to lose it to someone who can better socially interact with them but can't run as better as I do.
I heard many times someone was elected as a manager for being a social person then fucking up their own sector. I haven't even talked about politics (with disasters such Lula da Silva).Sigh- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
Regarding 1685, I don’t necessarily think the scrum system is the best way to decide if people can be cooperative beyond small groups. Why are you holding this up as the best evidence?
I think the key point is that if everyone owns the business together, they actually have a very strong incentive to make decisions about who should be CEO based on professional abilities rather than social skills.- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
I'm using it as a credible source, but we can adventure through more researches about what's the ideal number of a cooperational group.In post 1690, Menalque wrote:Regarding 1685, I don’t necessarily think the scrum system is the best way to decide if people can be cooperative beyond small groups. Why are you holding this up as the best evidence?Sigh- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
Do you think people are good with politics already?In post 1690, Menalque wrote:I think the key point is that if everyone owns the business together, they actually have a very strong incentive to make decisions about who should be CEO based on professional abilities rather than social skills.Sigh- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
- Creature
-
Creature Solve This Game
- Creature
- Solve This Game
- Solve This Game
- Posts: 46072
- Joined: January 26, 2016
- Location: Lands of Fire
If someone pulls a Trump, yes they can take me off power.In post 1694, Menalque wrote:If you did this and led your own business well, treated your employees with respect, and involved them in the decision making process — including giving them a meaningful vote on the future direction of the business, do you really think they’d just pick someone else to run things?Sigh- Donempire
-
Donempire No prefMafia Scum
- Donempire
No pref- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2953
- Joined: September 18, 2015
- Pronoun: No pref
- Location: Far Away
I like your good faith argument, but i dont see it working after the company has reached a certain point and has grown too much. Like, do you do this kind of analysis for everyone who works hard? What about the council thats deciding who gets paid what, do they need to be paid more for everyone that they analyze? Is there even a council like that? If not, does just the general workers decide? What if someone objects to a raise or a downgrade on someones pay with sufficient evidence but not a lot of backing from others? Do we need a judge to oversee that? And so on and so forth. Just giving all of that power on someones livelihood to an imaginary council opens a can of worms, that a set pay for everyone doesnt.Menalque wrote:
But the world we’re in is one where CEOs do make significantly more than 100 times what the average worker makes. Also, if you allow businesses to be run collectively, that takes a significant amount of strain off the CEO, making their job easier. For instance, if everyone in the business is coming together to vote on what the long term strategy and where it should be going is, then life is easier for the CEO, who then only has to help implement that.In post 1679, Donempire wrote:
I understand. What i meant was the person who initially started the business, not someone who then replaced him to make the decisions like is the case with disney and other old corporations.In post 1671, Menalque wrote:
I’m sorry, but I don’t think that’s a satisfactory answer, and it certainly isn’t for the level of discrepancy that we have in income/wealth between different people in a business.In post 1665, Donempire wrote:
Because of the risk they took doing it. A menial laborer knows what hes getting at the end of the month. Someone putting all their chips onto a new fad doesnt.In post 1662, Menalque wrote:
I never said that it was. But without the workers there wouldn’t be a company. Why does what the CEO do merit a greater reward than them?In post 1658, Creature wrote:I think there's credit based on amount of skills and effort needed
Being CEO isn't simply sitting in a chair and watching your workers struggle
Fundamentally, the business would not be profitable without people doing the day to day of selling or working. If you have a business that is profitable because 100 cleaners clean 10 houses each a day for £10 per house to the business, and the cleaners get paid £50 per day while the CEO makes £5000 a day, you have a situation where the value creation is not going to the people actually creating it.
Sure theres wealth inequity there but the example you gsve is very extreme and it isnt what im supporting, more like 50 for the workers and 200 for the ceo for example. It isnt just sitting in a chair either, everything the cleaner does is basically predetermined once he/she chooses the job and it doesnt extend from that.
A ceo has to make decisions on behalf of the whole corporation and on where it is going, handle the legal stuff, is responsible for the behaviour of everyone under his wing, and more while the cleaners only responsibility is cleaning. When you look at it this way ceos definitely deserve more, just not a 1/100 cut like you said.
But besides this, why not let people dexide for themselves? If all businesses were owned by their workers, and the CEO really did do a harder job than the average worker, why are we so quick to assume that people would not be reasonable about this? I don’t see why it’s more likely that everyone would say “nah, fuck you, you’re doing something harder but you get nothing for it” rather than “okay, your job is a bit harder, why don’t you make X multiplier in whatever the base salary is that we all make”. And again, I think this would be a much more likely outcome in a world which had transitioned to a socialist economy and was in the process of a values transition.
And if you let the council decide things company wise and not pay wise that kight work, but then you'd be giving the millions a ceo gets to maybe 20 people now, which isnt so much different. And now the bad decisions cant be pointed at someone and the people with good ideas get fucked over while the people fucking up kind of blend in (in the case of a bad pr move etc)Age of Empires Elo: 1500 something in DE, 1800 in HD
Formerly Dongempire- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
I just think there are multiple examples of mutual aid which show that altruistic behaviour is possible among larger groups.In post 1691, Creature wrote:
I'm using it as a credible source, but we can adventure through more researches about what's the ideal number of a cooperational group.In post 1690, Menalque wrote:Regarding 1685, I don’t necessarily think the scrum system is the best way to decide if people can be cooperative beyond small groups. Why are you holding this up as the best evidence?- Menalque
-
Menalque he/himSurvivor
- Menalque
he/him- Survivor
- Survivor
- Posts: 22775
- Joined: May 15, 2019
- Pronoun: he/him
- Location: Madrid, Spain
In post 1692, Creature wrote:
Do you think people are good with politics already?In post 1690, Menalque wrote:I think the key point is that if everyone owns the business together, they actually have a very strong incentive to make decisions about who should be CEO based on professional abilities rather than social skills.In post 1693, Creature wrote:I don't see very professional politicians lately, just the loudest ones getting enough popular attention (even if they're semi-illiterate).
I think there a number of differences, not least that successful management of a company is easy to discern that successful management of a country (fewer factors in play and the important ones are self-defining, whereas in a state the most important thing for the government is simply the maintenance of the state — as most objectives are therefore secondary to this, it becomes much harder to say if things are being well run, especially considering how many pies the government has their fingers in and what is important to the populace in saying a government is “run well” having a huge amount of variety), but also that trying to make decisions among millions of people is certainly going to be more prone to error/manipulation given the current state of the world then in a small business. So I don’t think the comparison is really fair.In post 1695, Creature wrote:
If someone pulls a Trump, yes they can take me off power.In post 1694, Menalque wrote:If you did this and led your own business well, treated your employees with respect, and involved them in the decision making process — including giving them a meaningful vote on the future direction of the business, do you really think they’d just pick someone else to run things?- Donempire
-
Donempire No prefMafia Scum
- Donempire
No pref- Mafia Scum
- Mafia Scum
- Posts: 2953
- Joined: September 18, 2015
- Pronoun: No pref
- Location: Far Away
My problem is that the rich are already keeping their wealth in secret vaults and hoarding it to avoid paying taxes, what difference would a new tax make?In post 1686, Formerfish wrote:A wealth tax would take care of all of this. It would allow people with innovative ideas to thrive, but would also put things in place for when they grow to big that they start getting into Bezos territory. Then they start giving back, which would slowly raise the lower and middle class towards the upper and it would stop people from going from the upper to untouchable.Age of Empires Elo: 1500 something in DE, 1800 in HD
Formerly Dongempire - Donempire
Copyright © MafiaScum. All rights reserved.
- Menalque
- Menalque
- Donempire
- Creature
- Menalque
- Creature
- Creature
- Creature
- Menalque
- Creature
- Menalque
- Creature
- Formerfish
- Creature
- Menalque
- Creature
- Menalque
- Donempire
- Creature
- Donempire
- Creature
- Creature
- Menalque
- Formerfish