What is a Liberal, and What is a Conservative?

Well, companies provide jobs and require the services of those making and designing the products, those that market them, those that provide ivnestments, etc. Heck, a good portion of the workforce is employeed by such companies. You can't just talk about companies like the only people who are part of them is upper managment and investors. Seems like a false characterization.

There are abuses, but that is hardly true of all companies. Of course, ANY time you have an organization, there is potential abuse or unethical actions. I have never claimed that such actions don't occur, or that they are proper. However, I will stand by my statement that most companies don't operate like that.
However, you are right in one regard, the oringal question does seem to pick out a bias of people if they favor a socialistic economy versus a capitalistic economy. The further we progress this debate, the clearer it becomes.

However, they didn't seperate them, they just mentioned companies. That was my issue with the wording. IF you want to ask about certain points, ask about them, but be clear.As for income, the majority of income goes to costs (ie labor, buying parts, buying equipment, shipping, ect). Now, if you were to say that investors recieve the majority of the profit made by the company, you would be correct. Some would be assessed out for bonuses. Upper management incomes are still a buisness expense. However, on this issue, I agree with you. Boards of directors that are willing to overpay executives are foolish. However, corporations are privately held buisnesses, and if the owners, ie shareholders, wish to drive their buisness into the ground, so be it. Frankly, if I were a shareholder of Tyco, I would probably drag the manegement of Tyco into court for missappropraiting funds that should have either gone to buisness expansion or to the shareholders.

I am just going to leave it as we disagree. I think the proposititions are unclear, and without detailed methodology for how various equations contribute to variuos scores, I shall remain skeptical. Its too hard for me to take seriuosly any statistic or survey without understanding the methodology and scoring behind them.

actually, I came out pretty close to the middle, bit to the right and a bit downward. And I didn't have a problem with the questions as objectionable, just unclear. I am big on clarity. However, I am willing to concede the purpose of the test isnt to survey, but to give a possible rough placement of indvidual poliical persuasion, as long as they don't try and claim its scientific (without posting methodoloy for calculations.)

Well, it would take extensive debate and data which weighed postive aspect of the economics of such companies versus their waste. I am hardly one to say it is all one or the either. I like to base my views on evidence and facts. IF you want to debate the strenghts and weakness of the corporate entity, or even economic systems, I think that would make a wonderful topic. Please let me know if your intersted. I am willing to discuss those issues with you at lenght and in detail on a different thread. Well, possible, yes. However, you make alot of bold assertions in this statment, without any evidence. I think, to look at the evidence, we probably would find postive and negative aspects of incorporation. Also, since corporations are run differently by various countries, it might be interesting to discuss the role of government in defining the coporate entity and if laws could be adjusted to improve such corporations, and what the costs of doing so would be. Poor analogy that corrisponds with your opinion, not evidence. Be like me saying," if you have two unequal tanks of water, one virutally empty and the other overflowing, each servind different countries, wouldn't a hole be benificial with which to share such resources? Just an example (not one that I neccessary agree or diagree with, because its such a poor analogy.)

Crash, I agree that some of your ideas have merit. For example, I admit there are some major errors in the way buisnesses are regulated. That doesn't mean all such buisness are bad, but the room for abuse and detriment are there, as well as the positives.As for economics, there isn't a fixed amount of economy. For example, what is deemed the first world has seen a MASSIVE increase economically over the last two hundred years. Some of that was based off exploitation, but alot of it was based off increases in technology, economic developement, education, etc. The descrepencies in economies around the world stems partially from the reason that not every nation has followed a similar path. Its not that afganistan is worse than it was 200 years ago, but it is far worse than parts of the world today, because economic development and the prerequistites were never met or acheived. 100 years ago, the average life expentacy of the US citizen was less than 50 years, with living conditions in most areas only a few steps above what we would deem poverty. If you look throughout history, there are major economic desparities between various cultures.
You even consider the end goal of globalization to be a postivie thing, but see it frought with bumps. I agree, but that path is the best one we have so far. We probably could improve on things, but we are delving into areas of social change that is quite unique to virtually any time in history, and therefore alot is still unknown. With regards to such a lack of knowledge, I believe our best bets are to examine the strengths and weaknesses of our approaches and debate them.

Actually, printed money has no value but what backs it. Oringinnally, gold was used as a currency backer. The US, in the 50's I believe, changed to using the US economy as a guerantee on the currency. However, such currency has continued to expand in value because the economy behind it has expanded. If you were to print money without economic expansion, nothing happens but the decrease in the value of the dollar. If you expand the economy and the money supply, you don't see that drop. However, if you have a fixed amount of money, and the economy developes, you would see a deflation of the dollar. Add in population growth, and the value of the dollar wouuld skyrocket (which is as bad as high inflation, but for differnt reasons.) Of course, economics is a really in-depth subject, and most of it beyond my knowlege, but one thing I have noticed from what I have read, is that is extremely complicated. You zero sum view is not only an oversimplfication, its wrong. I agree that there is more to be done, but as I was pointing out, we are almost all still better off for the progress in the last 200 years in the US. If you have suggestions and viable alternatives, bring them up and discuss them. That is the whole point of democracy, change through peaceful and democratic means where possible. I thought history is quite clear on this. If there is a more succesful economic/social model, please let me know. I didn't say that there arn't possible alternatives, but judging by economic and social devlopment, western civilazation has been one of the most successful socioeconomic systems in the history of mankind. I largerly support globalization, because, hopefully, it will benefit everyone in the long run. Previous schemes have failed, so its always worth trying new approaches. I agree it may not be the best path, but it seems to be better than other previous approaches. If there is a better alternative, we should consider it. However, I doubt there is a perfect system out there. Better.... possible, but nothing perfect.

My point is that currency isn't fixed (it is regulated by the government.) Also, you statement of zero sums seems to imply that the economy really doesnt expand, just that stuff gets pushed around (which is part of it, just not the only part.)

probably right there, have wandered a bit off topic.

I agree with you. There are of issues that remain unaddressed. One of them is how do we wish to deal with countries that obviously don't provide freedom and protection to its people. Of course, alot of the abuses stems from the government structure and regulation of buisnesss in those countries. ITs a sticky proposition, because how to change those governement peacefully to reduce or eliminate such abuses.

That is another option. However, all employment is volentary on both sides. If the workers at tyco were unhappy with their pay, they have several avenues. One would be to get another job, another would be to unionize.
However, companies are not government enterprizes, thus the control and distrubtion of profits is in the perview of the shareholders and the board of directors. Of course, the same holds true for any buisness enterprise. Single propetierships give that same power to the single owner.
I do think that workers who lost their jobs due to mismanegment may have a case against the manegment for econommic losses in civil court. They need to prove negligence and fraud, but considering the case, that shouldn't be difficult.

Cable TV has these issues because of a lack of competition. One of the roles of government is to prevent monopolies and to look out for the interests of the consumers. In this regard, I feel that the government has failed. Just look at the difference between Satellite TV and cable prices. I could get twice or more channels for about 1/2 to 1/3 the price, and include a DVR. Of course, with Sattelite TV, there is plenty of competition in each market, which keeps costs down.This message has been edited by Darwin Storm, 09-01-2004 11:07 AM

Couple of problems with this. One, internet access means nothing if people don't have computers. Alot of people don't have access because a computer is either out of their means, or just unwanted.
Secondly, you are assuming most people would use the internet for education or commerce.

Its also why workers often form unions to gain negotiationary leverage. Of course, Unions have their own baggage, but they can be very effective in protecting the workers. Also, politically, workers can vote, and labor laws are a direct consequence of such power.