joether
Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
|
Great topic DS. Only hope its a discussion that will maintain integrity and rival the "All things Zimmerman" thread.
Corporation & Govermental Feudalism
While it has been pointed out that each goverment type is not without its flaws and problems, I think I would have to include the 'corporation' as a goverment archtype. Its a model used mainly in the business world, but has been introduced in varily degrees to entities big and small over the decades. Feudalism became the unwritten rule for many an employee. If an employee made their manager look good before their superiors, good things would happen. When the employ's manager was promoted, they too would be promoted higher into the company. Just like in the 'old days' of kings and queens, those whom made their lords and lady's look good, were often given gifts and titles. Back in the old days, there were flags and heraldary markers to denote ranking, status, and maybe titles. Today's corporations have their own logo's. In both cases, the 'common folk' can readily reconize these flags/logos for what they represent. An app I found for a friend was entitled 'Logo Quiz'. I was not surprised just how many logos I reconized (got to the 8th level in a week or two).
Likewise, the pay structure of medival kings and morden CEO's is the same: They get more than the lion's share of funds. Those at the highest parts of either goverment structure netted a handsome profit, while those at the low or middle rungs, recieved a petty amount in comparison. The 'managers' at the top, hold all the power, and can dictate terms to the low and middle rungs with impunity. Using laws and 'enforcement' concepts, they can keep the populace as a whole hostage and obedient. In the old days, they'd just chop of limbs, throw you in the dungeon, or feed you to lions. Modern day, they just send swarms of lawyers on you. You can debate which is worst....
Given the status of things in 2012, it seems that we Americans have both a nobility and common folk groups at work. The nobility operates on a set or rules and laws that in some instances places them 'above the law' to which common folks must abide by. The Founding Fathers did not like how the nobility treated those below them, nor got away with murder. So they devious a 'blue print' by which a nation would handle its rules and regulations. That every person is held to the same laws regardless of their social or income level. And that those that wish to run for elected office at a federal level, could come from all walks of life, INCLUDING the poor! How many 'common folk' are in Congress right now? Compare that to the number of 'Nobility'? Because its a well known fact, that to run for federal office, one must have multiple millions (if not tens of millions). Not many 'common folk' have assets above the $1 million mark enough to 'throw away like confetti' for a chance to be a Representative or Senator in Washington, D.C.
With the introduction of The Union, created something the medival feudal kings never had to worry about: Goverment 'Of the People, By the People, For the People' deciding that the laws of the land should apply across the board, and not as a two tier society (Nobles/Upper Management and everyone else in the other). While the Union has gotten its share of 'flak' over the decades as a govermental structure in and itself; it has improved the lives of those under it and around it in ways and manners unheard of in civilized mankind before it! 40 Hour work weeks, decent pay, health coverage, time off to birth child, flex time, safety systems, and many others. The kings of old, would have just put these citizen's to the hangman's noose; but modern corporations can not do so as directly (but are working hard to do just that).
Regulated Capitalism
A concept not taught in modern business schools anymore! In previous decades, the concept was well understood as a way to keep greed in check. Capitalism, as most Americans have witness within the last five to seven years, is that if left uncheck can do great amounts of damage to a nation's (if not world's) economy. Like leaving a hungry fox in the hen house and expect nothing to happen. Regulated Capitalism was the idea that 'Of the People, By the People, For the People' would create reasonable rules and regulations that kept the public safe from predatory business practices while allowing immese levels of growth and productivity (aka profit). As mankind's understanding of the sciences increased, we learned that some products were made incorrectly or inefficiently or were they themselves bad (i.e. asbestos). Not only products, but services or the manner in which business people dealt with the public (i.e. Sear's Bait and Switch). As Americans learned more, products grew both in depth (types of the same product) and degree (different types of products). This resulted in goverment issuing forth rules and regulations. Many of these laws were enacted to prevent or limit a negative behavior that would have damaging effects on citizens. This was a concept often taught with the old board game of 'Monopoly'.
In Monopoly (or the game of 'Buy, Sell, and Foreclose on your Friends!'), there are rules to how the game is played. How things can be bought and sold, along with unpleasent concepts like "Go to Jail" and 'Bankruptcy". In the normal, standard game, there are no rules for getting anything on 'Free Parking'. Many people have created their own individual 'house rules' or 'regulations' that some form of money is collected/placed on Free Parking. As the game progresses, the total player base will be dimished down to one (the winner). And most people will pass when offered to play the game because the belief is, the game takes.....way to long....to play out. Regardless, the game is a concept for 'Regulated Capitalism' in the sense that most things are 'standardized' and only one's luck and business skills determine success or not.
Now if the 'regulated capitalism' component was removed from Monopoly, could it still be played? Yes, to a point. To explain this, consider the scenario: Four players are midway through a game (your one of them). One guy is in the lead, two others are doing 'ok' (your one of these players) and the last one is doing badly. One of the players in the 'ok' group lands on Boardwalk with a hotel. He doesnt have the $2000 needed to pay without reducing houses and morgaging properties. So obviously, he is in a serious situation. Rather than do all those things, he just takes $3000 from the bank directly and calls it a 'Goverment Bail-Out' (with no strings attached). He hands the $2000 to the owner of Boardwalk and pockets the rest. Now, what do the rest of the players do? The losing player will automatically side with this player (cus he has everything to gain from it). The player winning states its not in the rules and therefore should not be allowed to have it. Your the deciding vote. You could side with the player losing two grand and 'allow anarchy to enter the game', or the one winning 'siding with regulated capitalism'. If you go to the first side, the game will never end and no one will ever lose or win. If you side with the second person, the game will have an end, but its not predicted WHO will be the winner.
...Either one of these concepts, could be its own thread. The depth of the discussion is however, doubtful, as most 'common folk' have thrown their hands up in disgust and irrelavence that nothing can be done.
|
RE: Needs Vs. Wants - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread