Shareholder Socialism would be the ultimate irony though. Socialism through capitalism. At least for a little while until the State starts "acting as a powerful investor that influences company decisions".

... aka Central Planning. Which is how the chocolate ration winds up being increased from 60 grams per week to 40, and the shoe factories always exceed production quotas, despite the fact that half the population seems to be walking around barefoot.

You mean like China?

Ok, it's not often that a respectable media entity such as the Washington Post commits a blunder to egregious that I actually notice, but this is one:


Here's an excerpt from:




1: Yes, the US unemployment rate is unchanged since last year, at 3.7%.

2: That's because it's been pegged at a -=> 50 year record low <=- for the past 12 months. Unemployment in the US has not lower than this since September 1969, when a significant percentage of the labor force were either serving as conscripts in the Vietnam war, or working like hell to avoid the draft.

Source for data: https://www.macrotrends.net/1316/us-...mployment-rate



Jesus fucking Christ. These desperate inkstains are making ME sound like a red-hatter... Do they not teach Ethics in J-school any more? Research? Fucking US History for that matter?

This is actually what has set China apart in the history of Communism. They recognized in the late 20th century that national ownership and central planning were inefficient. So while they still embrace the single-party government and strict social controls which are commonly associated with communist rule, they have actually rejected the core tenets of communism as an economic philosophy.

Over the past couple years I’ve dealt with many “startups” in the industrial market from mainland China. A common thread is the “owner” is often the regional government. Maybe not “central” as you mean but nonetheless central enough.

In the area of strategic materials i.e. cobalt and tantalum (to name a couple) they control the supply and consequently the price and by owning the companies that provide finished goods also benefit from vertical integration and so profit through the chain. The prices they could sell for are so absurdly low it comes across as inferior unless you actually put quality into the equation.

Maybe we call it modern day communism? Most of the people I know there are “living the dream” but that dream isn’t the same as ours.

There’s a reason capital has flocked to China even with it’s government.

China's economy in the 21st century is an odd hybrid, for which I can find no other parallel.

During the latter years of my tenure at Harris (before it became Gates), we also did a fair bit of business with a few companies in Guangzhou. One did injection-molded plastics, one did sand castings, and one did rubber membranes for keypads.

I have no idea who the major shareholders were in these companies. But I can assure you that we dealt with people who I'd consider mid-level sales execs and production managers, and got turnaround times which were comparable to any domestic small-run* suppliers. This was the exact opposite of Soviet-style central planning, in which you'd order five hundred of a certain cast-aluminum bracket in October with 90 day turnaround specified, receive delivery of four pallets of toasters the following March, and then be tried and sent to the Gulag for misappropriating sixty tons of grain and rice in April.

Another hit-piece from WaPo which makes me question whether Mr. Tuckerman, who taught both Research and Ethics in Journalism back in the mid 90s, died and was never replaced:

I'm sorry, but what? I'm not sure what dimension you're living in, but here at a little TV station in the midwest, the scenario you describe is exactly the reality in which I live. As management, I have broad discretionary authority in the strategic movements of the company, but I can assure you that when it comes down to problems of individual employees who are just not doing their jobs (or, worse, creating a toxic working environment for everyone by sowing rumors about their co-workers, while at the same time being resented by those same co-workers for getting away with doing a half-assed job), the union has virtually unlimited authority to unilaterally interpret the contract under threat of protracted litigation .

I am positive you are infinitely wiser than me in this area since I have never done business with China nor have I ever been formally educated in economics. But, if the state owns the company, and controls the price of goods and production, then it is in no way a capitalist system, at least not by any layman explanation of the term I've ever read. So I would say no, not like China.

Also, the Shareholder Socialism idea starts with a capitalist system and the state takes advantage of it. Again not like China. So whatever China is, I'd say it's not shareholder socialism or whatever term you'd want to come up with to ruin capitalism.

black person asking screaming like a baby for a separate section is a bit lol.

feeling cute, going to go smash the fasc.

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...31&oe=5DD9F4C4

I'm familiar with Prof. Corneo's writings and while he says Shareholder Socialism could replace the existing capitalist system there's no reason it has to start with one. And please don't imply I'm anti-capitalist. I've been an ardent believer in capitalism all my life and by most measures have done well at it.

My point was China somewhat acts this way today. Maybe not in all areas but when I do due diligence on companies I want to do business with they largely point to a regional government ownership especially in the areas where minerals are sourced and processed. Would you or I ever deal with anyone from the regional government? Of course not just like you never deal with a shareholder of Walmart when buying milk. Like JoeP said earlier most of the people you and I would deal with are mid-level company managers just trying to do a job (and keep theirs).

https://www.dailywire.com/news/50784...6RYWh1rmBkIJ3c

lol.

Granted she is acting like a raging c*&$, but she's not asking for a separate section for African-Americans, like your comment implies. She wants people with animals in restaurants to be in a separate section.

As someone who has 3 dogs and a cat........I don't see a problem with this. Animals aren't allowed in restaurants for sanitary reasons in the US.....unless they are a "service animal." I didn't realize being a "service animal" magically made animals as pure as the driven snow.

These people are great, my 5'1" girlfriend would put this fat fuck on his ass without a problem, then laugh how easy it was.

Which is total bullshit. You won't find a single veterinarian who supports the FDA language about animals in restaurants being a health hazard. It's about insurance premiums in case some ass-hat brings his uncut pitbull into a steak joint and it rips apart a toddler. The FDA is used as a tool for lots of special interest lobbying... this is just a really obvious example that nobody thinks otherwise about. "Of course animals are dirty and disgusting and shouldn't be around food." When was the last time your Doctor told you shouldn't let your dog in your kitchen at home?

For example, restaurant owners in NH got their Governor to sign off on this. "But what about muh health!"
A New Hampshire restaurant owner may allow his or her "properly disciplined companion dog" inside his or her food establishment, as long as it does not go in food preparation areas. However, a restaurant owner allowing his or her companion dog must “prominently display a sign at all public entrances” letting patrons know that his or her dog is allowed on the premises and that the dog will be removed from parts of the establishment where members of the public are present if a patron with a service animal is present.

The ADA, which is the only governing authority for service animals, only allows 2 types of animals to be classified as "service animals"... dogs and miniature horses. Any company can turn away any animal that isn't a dog or miniature horse and be legally in the clear. But a proprietor risks a lawsuit if they turn away a dog they think is just a bullshit "support animal" and turns out the person has actual documented medical need... and "documented medical need" is fairly easy to come by.

I've got a retired EOD buddy who was pretty fucked up his last deployment. He's 6'4" 280lbs, and has a 150lb female Mastiff provided by VA medicine. Just looking at the guy, you can tell he's a vet with issues, but he's had problems when somebody won't believe a dog that big is a legit "service dog". He got a dog that big because when he has a seizure or loses his shit, the dog has to be able to control him. There's nothing he hates more than bullshit "support animals".

In the end, the instant that woman saw a dog in the restaurant, what happened was inevitable. They could have had the dog euthanized on the spot and given her free meals for a year, and she still would have had a self-indulging tirade because that's what women like that do. I'm sure that's not the first time she uttered the words "in front of my goddamn daughter" in front of her goddamn daughter. The boyfriend also had CLEARLY seen this before.

I've never asked.

But my sister's dogs parade through their own poop, roll around in their own poop, eat their own poop, etc. (And by "their own," I am speaking collectively. The poop is shared equitably.)

I don't let those fuckers touch me, except for the morbidly obese chihuahua which is extremely shy and avoids the other hounds and their excrement.


Agreed on the rest of your rant, though.

Animals are dirty, including humans.

Anyone happen to watch the new Netflix documentary ?

Great interview with the crew that actually made it: Work is going global. American Factory’s directors explain how they captured its challenges.

A couple parts struck me as spot on and really does differentiate between our culture and others around the world;

I've had the pleasure to deal with many multi-national companies over my career where those companies came to America and this is a central theme I've noticed.

Doctors will always suggest not to have cats in the house because of the litter box. Hobbes used to leave butt prints everywhere he went. Still would rather have cats than dogs in regards to being clean -- at least they don't eat shit.

Interesting data site, a view on the givers and takers...

Who Gives and Who Gets?