Originally Posted by Emet, Paladin of Truth
only because they've proven themselves inept.
You want those people, that are "inept" at governing themselves to be governed by "inept" people who can't be removed from power because the people can't voice their opinions on the matter? That just seems like poor logic doomed to fail. Why are the leaders of the GGC less "inept" then other people?
I want them to have thier own best interests at heart! when they get paid, the people are paid nine times as much! it is in our best interest that they do what's in thier best interest!the truth or untruth of those views- that which is bad for the people, fails.
The "people" get paid 9 times as much as the leaders of the GGC not the "person." Sure, getting paid 9 times more then the bosses seems great, except they are splitting the pot less the 1% of the way the people need to split it. You get paid much more money splitting $40 million 10 ways then you do 307,006,550 (July 09 census for US population). Doesn't sound like so much money anymore.
the money's not coming from the gov, but from production- the generation of capital.
I'm going to pull a quote from further down this thread:
"you haven't got this yet? this is the most simple, core part of the GGC- the 'vicious cycle' which exponentially increases the GDP- roughly: 1) the GGC gives a fledgling co. money. 2) the fledgling co. uses this money (giving some back to the GGC) to make money (some of which goes to the GGC), increasing the GDP. 3) repeat indefinitely"
Money is coming from the GGC, but the GGC doesn't have as much money as they are taking in way less per person then the current US government, meaning the government has less money to give to a starting company.
you haven't got this yet? this is the most simple, core part of the GGC- the 'vicious cycle' which exponentially increases the GDP- roughly: 1) the GGC gives a fledgling co. money. 2) the fledgling co. uses this money (giving some back to the GGC) to make money (some of which goes to the GGC), increasing the GDP. 3) repeat indefinitely.
I know, but it does serve as a rough estimate- the GGC makes money each time money changes hands- a much better estimate of the economy.
"Sustainability of growth–GDP is not a tool of economic projections, which would make it subjective, it is just a measurement of economic activity. That is why it does not measure what is considered the sustainability of growth. A country may achieve a temporarily high GDP by over-exploiting natural resources or by misallocating investment. For example, the large deposits of phosphates gave the people of Nauru one of the highest per capita incomes on earth, but since 1989 their standard of living has declined sharply as the supply has run out. Oil-rich states can sustain high GDPs without industrializing, but this high level would no longer be sustainable if the oil runs out. Economies experiencing an economic bubble, such as a housing bubble or stock bubble, or a low private-saving rate tend to appear to grow faster owing to higher consumption, mortgaging their futures for present growth. Economic growth at the expense of environmental degradation can end up costing dearly to clean up."
ON WHAT A GOV. IS SUPPOSED TO DO!! christ. only the friggen core precept.
A government is supposed to defend it's people, maintain order within is borders, and promote the welfare of it's people.
exactly- instead of doing what a gov. is supposed to do- maintain the public environment- it's off on some damn fool idealistic crusade for vengeance/peace in the mideast/oil for haliburton (depending on your perspective) it's sacrificed a ton of taxpayer money on something no american benefits from- something the GGC, totally focused on doing (oh, I don't know) IT'S JOB, would never do.
So attacks against the nation would go unanswered, even though it would cost the citizens of that nation there lives, so the GGC can turn a profit? I would hardly call protecting it's citizens "something no american benefits from" but thats just me I guess.
you may have noticed I flamed a lot in this response. in many cases, you deserved it for sheer not-reading-my-post-buttfuckery. this is one of those times.
I think you take disagreeing with a flawed concept as "sheer not-reading-my-post-buttfuckery. You also don't grasp some of my points so I'd say we're even.
I repeat IF the GGC was a man IT WOULD FAIL. the GGC is a company.
Established, but you forget that people run companies. A company is a name on paper, you need people to do anything with it.
like a zombie, it has one disire, one instinct- to feed. and whenever it does, the people get a bigger chunk.
Divided amongst all the people, except those running the GGC, who would have first crack on where the money goes.
now so long as it IS CORRUPT, it'll do what it's supposed to.
You mean assign 85% of there yearly income as a bonus to their top level management? It's not what they are supposed to do, but it's a corrupt thing to do.
if it decides to do what's "right" despite the fact that it'll lose money (and screw the people over in doing so) IT WOULD FAIL. in other words, right for the majority>right for the few. spending taxpayer money so the ~10% of americans who don't have healthcare can may be "right," but it's not profitable, therefore wrong.
But what if they kill those 10% of people that are sick? They have no healthcare so no access to treatment. If they get sicker they can't work and there fore can't make and spend money. The GGC gets nothing from them so why keep them around, as the produce nothing and anything they get will be by illegal means costing companies and the GGC money.
Killing them would be more profitable them then a welfare and public health system, so it must be "right," right?
THEN WE HAVE UTOPIA
I think you have a warped view of a utopia then.
who the hell is this man to decide what the greater good is? only the bottom line- only reality- has the ability to do that.
No it does not, the bottom line can show us what is very very wrong. Owning slaves is a great way for a business to generate large profits (it's why the civil war was fought), but slavery is still very, very wrong. Using Asbestos was wrong, but it was cheap there by increasing profits. Hell I bet I could turn a huge profit selling highly addictive narcotics, like crack and crystal meth, but it would be wrong to use that addiction to turn a profit.
this man is just using the greater good as an excuse- if it was really good, it would also be profitable.
Because the examples I outlined above we both profitable and right. Not everything that is profitable is "right" and not everything that is not profitable is "wrong."
who's "leading" the GGC? it's a company. in a company everyone- EVERYONE you hear me? is liable to the bottom line. if his actions cost the GGC money- heads will roll.
no need to get hostile Emet, relax. Again, it's a company and the "man" leading the company is assumed to be the CEO. Now I'm going to talk about corporate structure, so bear with me.
If the GGC was a publicly held company, which it can't be or people would have a say, it answers to a board of directors and shareholders. If the company is not publicly held it answers to the CEO. He has absolute power within the company to shape policy and it's actions. Now if the GGC has nothing above the CEO, he can't be terminated for doing a poor job as there is no one above him.
Do you see where I'm going here? Whats to stop this one man from doing whatever the hell he wants? We can't vote him out, we have no say in who's running the GGC. If he decides to turn women into baby factories, kids to start 8 hour work days at age 12, and injured workers are killed if unable to work there is nothing to stop him, as the people can't do ANYTHING (and don't tell me that wouldn't raise profits, it so could).
Or lets say you have a group of equal level managers at the highest level of the GGC. They decide that 85% of what cam into the GGC this year should be paid directly to them, for the fantastic job they feel they did. We can't do anything about that because people have no say.
Now you have in the past talked about how the GGC would have moral philosophers on staff to determine if an action is moral or not, though you have seemed to step away from that thinking, and in the event of an action being amoral the GGC wouldn't do it. If thats the case great, except if the CEO(s) decide to get rid of the philosophers who don't agree on their new course. What makes matters worse is if the philosophers can say "firing me would be amoral" and keep their jobs the GGC would get nothing done EVER, rendering it even less inept as our current government.
that's what I mean by "no mercy, no wrath, only truth," the GGC doesn't make mistakes. it doesn't sacrifice the needs of ~90% of americans for the needs of ~10%- it doesn't it's love of life get in the way of what must be done- it knows no mercy. it doesn't haul off to war just because it decides it hate arabs- it doesn't let its hatred get in the way of what must be done- it knows no wrath.
it only does what's good for it- only what benefits both it and the people- only truth.
And you missed the point of what I said, in that people still need to run the company. Somebody, somewhere in the GGC holds more power then anyone else and if they want to do something they couldn't be stopped.
Any form of government that leaves power in the hands of one person, or even a few, that are not selected by the citizens of that nation is doomed to failure. It's all over history, and it's why the GGC can't work. Sure the GGC could make things nice for a little while (100 years, maybe 200?) but the government would rot from the inside until the population couldn't handle it anymore and they would topple it.
On that we've gone WAY of topic so I'm going to leave it at that. Emet, if you want to continue this please PM me. You idea does have some interesting points and I wouldn't mind reading the whole set up.