quote author=b_lumenkraft link=topic=1102.msg209631#msg209631 date=1561930505]
Because it's in the interest of the company to make money. If this means screwing over people they can't explain to their shareholders why they didn't so they do. The state needs to protect them. If you don't you get a polluted environment and screwed over customers.
In you system who would own the car plant? Who would own the farms and farm equipment?
In my system? To be honest, social democracy is not the system i would prefer. It's the system that's the least utopic and the least evil one given the circumstances.
If it was about me, you'd hear a rougher tone! One child policy, no private wealth, planned economy, bullshitter and liars would be sent to the gulag for a few weeks. Religion would be banned. But that's way too utopic, so why would i argue for it?
[/quote]
if a solution is necessary we have to focus on it despite whether it's currently utopical.
you proposals are mostly workarounds or buzz-wordy eyewashing.
we need another system in terms of:
a) monetary system without interest (on interest on interest) etc. it's causing forced growth and makes some people do the work while others live from concentrated wealth and it's optimization.
b) responsibility of our leaders for their doing an this in the full range from hurtful penalties up to live sentences in prison in in some rare cases death sentences (war crimes etc.)
c) cap wealth or in other words, distribute wealth better by fair participation of employees, best probably through pension increases and benefits, else it will be difficult to cut wages in bad times and increase them in good times, wages must be stable and other benefits can vary
d) to throw the corrupt to prison in masses
e) to prohibit lobbying that is legal corruption where the too rich purchase conditions after their will.
my 2 books on this topics have 950 pages all together, it's alway dangerous to provide that kind of complex input i 10-20 lines. nevertheless social and fair are not useful terms anymore becaue they have been vastly abused and every party (group) defines fairness and socially feasible very different.
we need very specific cuts/rules for politicians, elections, impeachments for far less than it can happen in the U.S.
a president who is tweeting is neither a statesman nor presidential. IMO those social media have outlived their original purpose and became a playground for evil and distraction, keeping our next generation from learning things they will need and will later complain why they get nowhere and make war.
etc. etc. etc.. no way to finish here on this topic.
about the other guy i did not dare to say something but i'm glad that keeping my mouth shut at times leads to the same results.
cheers.