I find it highly unlikely that you don’t know what they mean by those terms. — Brett

I have no idea, and neither do you. Who's "they"? Christians? Which ones? Protestants? Catholics? Which denomination? Maybe it's "god" as a kind of sky father -- fine, let's go with that one as a kind of "average." What about it? What reason is there to believe in it? What reason is there to believe in Wodin?

Who cares?

I am referring to a God that believers believe in. — Brett

What do you care what they say they believe in? Do you care what Hindus believe in? One calls this amorphous thing "God," the other calls it "Brahman," etc. Who knows what they mean by these terms?

That can be any God. — Brett

It can be any THING at all. So you're essentially saying "it can be any X." Some mean they believe in "love" or "nature" or the "unknowable"...and on and on. So what? Until we know what we're talking about, how can we possibly talk about it in any meaningful way? Maybe we believe, maybe we don't. Maybe we want to "replace" it with something, maybe we don't.

Again, this isn't even a coherent question. It's just a dead end.

Hindus really believe in Brahman and Shiva. Are these truths to you, or do they have no validity? If not, what have you replaced them with?

Okay. Let me be clearer. I was not referring to “truths” about God. I was referring to the idea that God exists exists for believers. — Brett

The Easter bunny exists for some believers. Ectoplasm exists for some believers. Who cares? The only reason you're asking this question is because we happen to be living in the Christian West, which takes the word "God" seriously, as if it's something everyone knows. I'm sure Hindus ask the same thing about non-believers in Hinduism.

This is a dead end.

I don't dismiss anything until you tell me what it is I'm supposedly denying.
— Xtrix

I’m presuming you’re denying the existence of God. — Brett

Right -- and "God" hasn't been explained yet. So you might as well be saying I am denying X. Maybe I am, maybe I'm not -- we can't know until you tell us what X is. You're talking as if X is the most well understood entity in the world -- it isn't. Which is what I've said from the beginning.

All this proves is that you've grown up believing in a word you don't understand. If you want to explain what it is, then do so -- otherwise you're wasting everyone's time. If God is nature, I believe in it. If God is love, I believe in it. If God is a supernatural humanoid sky father, I see no evidence to believe in that. If God is anything we can't understand, then I believe in that too. Etc. etc.

As I said, not to believers. — Brett

Apply the same argument to Santa Claus. Just as fatuous.

That’s your opinion, or truth. It doesn’t really matter which one it is, because you dismiss the reality of God’s existence. — Brett

I don't dismiss anything until you tell me what it is I'm supposedly denying.

This is merely your opinion of something you don’t believe exists. — Brett

I can't say if that "something" exists or not, since no one can tell us what it is.

Also, saying things like "merely your opinion" is so fatuous it's embarrassing. Here, I'll show you: that is merely your opinion that it's my opinion.

For all those avowed atheists out there; if God and the beliefs in God’s existence and actions have no validity, no claim to truth, then what truth have you replaced them with? — Brett

If Shiva and the beliefs in Shiva's existence and actions have no validity, what have you replaced it with?

God is a concept and a word, and a poorly defined one at that. You happened to be raised in a tradition that takes that word seriously. It grows out of the same human mind that creates all kinds of rules for behavior.

The verb “command” comes from the Latin manus dare: the commander lends his means of action (his “hand”) to others to do something he has thought. A ruler gives orders to his subordinates, but upon closer examination you will see that only very rare rulers in history — a Napoleon, a Stalin, a Reagan — were themselves the creators of the ideas they came up with. Early theorists of the modern state got it right when they invented the term “executive power”: the man of government is usually the executor of ideas that he did not conceive of, nor would he have the ability — or the time — to conceive. And those who conceived these ideas were the same ones who gave him the means to reach the government to realize them. Who are they? — Rafaella Leon

This is excellent.

The answer lies right on the surface, for all to see. It's the "winners" of the capitalist system, the 0.1% of super-wealth: the major shareholders (owners) of multinational corporations. The corporate sector rules the world today. It's really that simple. Who are these people, and what ideology do they have? Turns out it's mainly a neoliberal ideology -- which shouldn't be surprising, given that they wouldn't be in these positions without first having internalized certain values.

:yawn:

What Geo said to you isn't a straw man. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, it was. Try your spin on someone else.

I personally don't believe the profit motive is an essential feature of human nature. I do, however, believe that it's an essential feature of any modern, successful economy.

See? I don't even believe in the position that you're ascribing to me. — BitconnectCarlos

...

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Give your head a shake, Xanax. Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Finally someone speaking some sense. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything you're seeing isn't intended to be an argument. We're just making our position clear. Us expressing our position isn't a "straw man." If you agree that's great, if you don't we can talk about it. — BitconnectCarlos

Take a look at the quotes again, and then try harder to spin it. "Despite what some other commentators are saying..." This implies they're saying something other than the banality you mentioned, which you claim -- sounding like the intellectual giant that is Donald Trump -- the "leftists don't understand."

Each one is most certainly a straw man. Nothing -- not one of those claims -- are an accurate portrayal of what I'm saying or, as far as I can see, anyone else is saying either.

You make references to "the game" or "the system" but you're not too clear about it exactly. — BitconnectCarlos

I think I've been pretty clear as to what I mean by that, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt: I'm talking about our economic system, which is a state capitalist system. I use "game" as an analogy. Within the context of this system, one may very well come to believe that the "profit incentive" is an essential feature of human nature. But this system, and that very belief itself, has a history. It's been beaten into our heads for generations, until it finally shows up in the warped worldview you represent. I don't expect you to see how deeply sick this attitude is. But I also won't pretend to have a rational discussion based on such an assumption.

What straw man are you talking about? — BitconnectCarlos

I shouldn't even respond, but in case you really aren't sure:

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten.
— geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. — geospiza

Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. — geospiza

There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth — geospiza

Despite what some of the other commentators are saying, saving and particularly investment are absolutely essential to civilization. — BitconnectCarlos

Without profit on investment you are effectively losing money, even if you break even. I make this point frequently and leftists never quite seem to understand it. — BitconnectCarlos

And what a profound point it is. Too bad those "leftists" can't understand your very stable genius.

Why don't the two of you go have fun arguing against your straw men. When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting.

What's interesting is that it's empirically on par with those examples, yet unquestioningly believed by millions of Americans as if it's a law of physics.

That's some impressive propaganda.

In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others.
— geospiza

Yeah I'm sure Elon Musk just works a few million percent harder and smarter than the average American. — Pfhorrest

Exactly. The "best explanation" doesn't apply there, I guess. Once again, no specifics, just vague, generalized, tired neoliberal slogans.

I appreciate that, thanks.



Some interesting stuff in there, thank you.

You're completely missing the point, and once again creating men of straw.

Go talk to scarecrows somewhere else.

Don't be a fool. There's evidence all around you of people being motivated to production by profit. Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda. — geospiza

Ask yourself: is ANYONE really making the claim that the profit motive doesn't exist?

Again, try arguing against real people.

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.
— Xtrix

No evidence? :rofl: — geospiza

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise.

Just a childish assertion, as if "profit" is essential in human behavior. In fact it ignores the the core thrust of philosophy, the sciences, and the arts. Not to mention family, friendship, and community. I suppose in your eyes, all this operates on the basis of the "profit incentive."

What a pathological, nihilistic view of the world.

Habits are repetitive patterns of behavior. Some physicists refer to "natural laws" as merely "habits", in order to avoid the implications of a Law-giver, or of Teleology in nature. — Gnomon

I've heard of the latter, but I myself prefer to use "habit" in the former sense of human behavior. I have nothing against the latter use other than personal preference.

Human habits vary from simple personal Routines that have been found to facilitate activities without the necessity of conscious thought. In that case, conscious thought may have been used to find a sequence of events that works for behaviors that can be done almost without thinking. For example, I divide my home-bound Covid day at home into roughly one hour chunks devoted to particular tasks in a regular sequence. This routine only works at home, because at work my time is regulated more by the needs & goals of other people. — Gnomon

Right, this is more what I'm thinking. Thanks for the example.

Such habits are often done without awareness, and without conscious reasoning, — Gnomon

But this applies to "positive" habits as well. Smoking is a good example of a "bad" habit (depending on one's goals), but things like driving a car (perhaps more of a "skill") or brushing one's teeth before bed could also be considered "without conscious reasoning."

So, Aristotle's use of "habit" or "disposition" implies goal-directed teleology. — Gnomon

Yes that's my reading as well.

But the scientist's use of the same word is intended to signify the opposite meaning : random, meaningless, purposeless behaviors. — Gnomon

What scientists do you have in mind? Psychologists don't talk this way. It's not that habits are "purposeless," it's that they're mostly unconscious. We can turn a doorknob unconsciously, but the purpose is clear: open the door, to enter a room, to join a meet, etc. In fact, embedded in many of our daily habits are various purposes.



Thanks -- but can you elaborate a little further here?



I appreciate that.

BTW, does anyone know exactly what Greek word is getting translated as "habit"?

Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. — geospiza

:yawn:

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans.

By maintaining modest corporate and personal tax rates there is less incentive to lower production or to export earnings. Stop the obsession with tax rates, and focus instead on overall tax revenues. Realize that there is a point at which higher marginal tax rates for the wealthiest income earners will negatively correlate with total tax revenue.

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. Poverty is the default condition. — geospiza

No one said the 1% made the rest poor. "Poverty is the default condition" is meaningless. And none of this addresses the points I raised above. But that's expected.

If you want to build straw men and/or hold conversations with yourself, an online forum isn't for you. Go read more Milton Friedman.

The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation — geospiza

This is incoherent. What is the principle of "the 1%"? It's not a principle at all, it's a statistic.

and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; — geospiza

It has nothing to do with "resentment" -- a common accusation for those who don't want to face reality.

that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. — geospiza

Who has said that on here? Try arguing with real people instead of your self-constructed phantoms. Classic straw man.

My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten. — geospiza

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways...

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. — BitconnectCarlos

This is mentally lazy, to talk about "preferences" and "perfect systems." There are no "perfect" systems, and no one is claiming there is. To try to spin the discussion into a discussion of "preferences" is like a creationist arguing for different "models" of origins: the creationist model and the "evolutionist" model. "Just two explanatory preferences, nothing more, and we can 'debate' the merits of both." Nonsense.

Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so.

For instance in relation to an event like climate change how might people, workers/owners, view coal mines as a business venture? — Brett

It really can't be separated from talk of profits and expansion, because that's what drives the decisions of the owners, at the expense of everything else, including the environment -- local or global. Climate change is a good example fo a situation where, if it weren't for nihilistic greed and addiction to expansion/growth, we could have the situation solved already.

The system itself needs to be changed. But that's in the long run. That won't happen in our lifetimes. A step towards that, however, is a move towards the co-op model, expansion of unions, etc.

It’s very interesting as a thought experiment. I was really wondering, though I didn’t make it clear, how the business landscape would change morally. What would either away and what would thrive? — Brett

In that case, as I mentioned, I think we would see drastic changes for the better. And it's not because I think the major shareholders (the owners) are evil. It's not that I think they outsource jobs, shut down factories, lay of thousands of workers, replace workers with automation, cut or cap overtime, try to keep wages down, find ways around paying benefits, agree to huge mergers, use tax havens and other loopholes to avoid taxes, etc. etc., because they're sadists. They probably hate doing it. But the very nature of the system is to maximize profit and market share, and to continually grow/expand. If you don't do that, you're not fulfilling your obligations, according to the game we're all playing.

If instead the workers get to make the decisions, almost none of those things would happen. It's better for them, better for the towns and cities they operate in, better for the environment, and so on. Now, would this mean they won't be financially successful? Not at all. I think the difference financially would be a kind of "natural" cap on how much profit is enough.

There are real world examples, too. I could get you the details if you'd like, because I don't remember many specifics, but there was a scenario within the last 30 years or so where I believe a car factory was going to be shut down because it wasn't profitable enough for Ford or whoever, and the workers of the factory offered to buy it from Ford and then run it themselves -- because it was still making a profit, just not up to Ford's standards. Ford refused to do so, and the factory was shut down.

This goes on a lot, and it demonstrates the rot in our current system. There's really no good reason for it. But it'll go on if people are not aware of alternatives and allow it to continue.

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in? — BitconnectCarlos

Are you unaware that small businesses and co-ops exist? Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question.

The workers are the businesses.
— Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day. — BitconnectCarlos

The CEOs are chosen by the board of directors, and sometimes serve as board chairs alongside CEO duties.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company?

If everything that existed now, in terms of business, factories, etc., was collectively owned what business do you think would remain and what would go? What would survive and what wouldn’t. What would happen to Goldman Sachs for instance, or coal mines? Apart from workers owning the capital how would the landscape change? — Brett

Good question. Obviously I can't say for sure, but my hunch is that a lot would change, but for the better. But not necessarily in terms of what is produced, or the daily routines. In other words, you could get rid of all the major shareholders in the country right now, and nearly everything would run exactly the same on the ground. No one would be the wiser.

Take Wal Mart. You can imagine that the Waltons disappear. What happens to Wal Mart? Does the shipping and receiving of goods change? Do the workers who provide security, stock the shelves, manage the scheduling, oversee the inventory, work as cash register, etc., stop dead in their tracks? Of course not.

Sure, maybe coal mines dramatically change. But if the workers are making the decisions, I'd imagine the working conditions, compensation, etc., would improve. If workers were in charge, would they choose to outsource jobs? Would they choose to shut a factory down because it didn't make enough profit, etc? As for Goldman Sachs -- most of these large financial institutions produce very little, and make most of their money from complex manipulations, moving money around, etc. So maybe they go under...good riddance.

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. — BitconnectCarlos

No, you're not understanding. There is no "owner." That's exactly the point. The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. The company is controlled and run democratically, by the workers themselves -- minus a bunch of major shareholders who produce exactly nothing, and whose privilege is obtained by legal maneuvering.

That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge. — BitconnectCarlos

It's educational to watch how difficult it is for people to even comprehend this. Might as well be speaking Swahili.

The workers already run the businesses, but don't "own" them (and don't make any of the major decisions). The proposal is simple: get rid of owners. It's not up to them to give "permission" to take over the businesses. The workers are the businesses.

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue. — BitconnectCarlos

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically.

I also didn't mention "ownership."

It's not about "forcing" companies to do anything, no.

Yes. Along the the rest. So when the following is said, in response to "workers should be in control":

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. — BitconnectCarlos

the point is obvious. Or should be.

Whilst I don't understand it definitively, I understand that the concept ( self organisation ) could explain all those questions that you pose. All that uncertainty can be made certain by acknowledging a singular process that in many ways is self evident in the universe and life, though not entirely understood - Yet! Yes it is a god concept - works much the same way as a god, but it places the power of god in the individuals hands, and it gives everybody and everything an equal power of god, by understanding that everything belongs to a singular process of self organization. So in this regard, I believe it is worth perusing. — Pop

Yes, but you might as well call it "X" or "God," then. If we don't understand what it means, then what's the point? We're not interested in replacing one word with another, or defining things in a vacuum.

we have Immanuel Kant and the problems of epistemology, the subject knowing objects (representations), and a long history of problems within the "mind/body" Cartesian dualism for literally centuries afterwards.
— Xtrix

Exactly, its time to understand all this under the one heading. :smile: — Pop

Why not call it "being," then?

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future. — BitconnectCarlos

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard.

Tell the Mondragon Corporation about how it's not possible to do what they do, or how damaging it is to their financial futures. Those "inexperienced workers" will be happy to hear from you.

And then there's this:



Workers are completely capable of controlling the companies they work for; they are the companies. This doesn't mean there is no longer any division of labor or leadership, or even that all wages are equal. Nothing like that whatsoever. It simply means that it is run -- shockingly -- democratically: the managers are elected, and decisions are not confined to 20 or so major shareholders. Nothing radical about this. And no, you won't find that it all collapses without the capitalist owners. The workers are perfectly capable of running the company -- why? Because they already do it.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work.
— Xtrix

Yep, and these guys make $$$ when business goes well. If only the everyday employee could get some skin in the game.

But what happens when things go poorly? You don't just lose your pay and get fired; the company collapses and you could be on the hook for insane amounts of money - those debts don't just disappear into thin air when the company declares bankruptcy. Now you've got 18 year old employees dealing with bankruptcy lawyers. — BitconnectCarlos

What are you talking about? It's not some "skin in the game," it's a business that the workers control outright. Businesses make profits and declare bankruptcy all the time, regardless of who's running it. What's the difference?

Again, this is done in the real world. Co-ops are a good example.

I haven't anywhere said that it would not be possible to have an economy without rent or interest. — Janus

You’re just begging the question if you’re implying that we do depend on rent and interest, i.e. there is no possible way to have a society without it.

And contractual slavery has been a common institution in the past. We got rid of it and society didn’t collapse.
— Pfhorrest

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest, and no foreseeable way to transition to an economy without it; that's what I'm saying. — Janus

So the first statement means: there's no way to have an economy with rent and interest without having rest and interest. Excellent insight.

Again, apologies for assuming you weren't stating the most banal of truisms.

If you don't see the conundrum then I'll conclude you are mired in fantasies, unless you can come up with a plausible plan of action for humanity's future trajectory. — Janus

There are plenty of plausible alternatives, for those not mired in capitalist fantasies.

The only thing changed between the real world and the hypothetical world is who owns what. — Pfhorrest

Yes. The capitalist system is one based on a relationship between employer and employee. A socialist system would be one where the "employees" (the workers) own and run things themselves. Very simple.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work.

For those who say it's impossible or lack the imagination to picture an alternative, they already exist in the real world -- and they're very successful indeed.

Think about it and you wont need authority to guarantee its right, youll see it for yourself. Abolition of rent, and particularly interest, being such integral parts of the present economy would obviously bring enormous changes. — Janus

No kidding.

Enormous changes would mean we would no longer have the same economy. It's not diificult to understand. — Janus

Is this really your argument? That we wouldn't have the "same" economy? Because you didn't say the "same," you said the "economy we have" -- which can imply our growth rates, distribution of wealth, general well being, productivity, etc. etc. Forgive me for believing you weren't just stating truisms.

There's no reason to believe we can't have a functional economy without rent and interest. True, that hypothetical economy -- by definition -- will not be the same as our present economy, which does have rent and interest. I'm glad you figured that out for yourself. Well done. Let's now move on to adult questions.

There is no way to have the economy we have without rent and interest — Janus

Says who?

↪Xtrix

No, Bezos does not control your life and is master of no one. — NOS4A2

Like I said, in your childish world of course not. I have no direct contact with Bezos, etc. So if we're going to absurdly restrict the definition of "control" to your level, then he has no control over my life. But then, again to you, neither does Trump. Neither does the governor. Neither does your boss at work. Etc. Just tired word games to avoid the obvious: Bezos and other powerful people have an inordinate amount of power, and they make decisions that directly impact all of our lives. And not just United States citizens, but the world community and future generations as well.

You willingly use his services or you do not. — NOS4A2

Your entire worldview is so warped it should be considered a psychological pathology.

As if it's so simple as to be a matter of whether one shops on Amazon or not. What a joke.

So it’s utter nonsense to suggest these people control anything beyond their own company and property. — NOS4A2

Yeah, because there's no such thing as lobbying and no such thing as externalities. Just honest, hard working innovators and businessmen who operate their businesses.

Such pleasant delusions.

You have less of a say in the government than you do in the market. — NOS4A2

I was waiting for the "market" to come up, as is typical for neoliberal corporate apologists. But I never mentioned "markets" -- we're talking about the corporate sector and the government.

(1) Within corporations, you have zero say in the decisions. Zero.

(2) Within the government, you have some say, especially in local politics with direct access to town councils, state representatives, state senators, etc. When you get to the federal level, you have almost none, with the exception of voting. Not much, by any means.

But compare this to how a major corporation works. As a worker, you can willingly work or willingly quit. The rest of the major decisions is in the hands of the major shareholders (owners), the board of directors whom they vote in, and the top administrators whom they choose. None of this has anything to do with "markets."

But by all means keep defending those wonderful robber barons who you're eager to live under. I'm sure you're one of them, after all. Oh, wait.

You're a prime example of the extraordinary effectiveness of corporate propaganda. (Let me save you the time: "No, YOU'RE the one who's brainwashed by Marxism, socialism...." etc etc.) Keep trying. Go donate to Trump's election fraud fund while you're at it.

As I said earlier, my hunch would be that most are neoliberal capitalists, with a good portion Christian or otherwise secularists.
— Xtrix

I agree, but that also sounds like a good description of much of the American populace as a whole. — Pfhorrest

That depends when it comes to the neoliberal part, at least according to polls. But there is still a good percentage, I imagine. But even if it is like many others who don't have as much power, we have to the account for the special problems and issues that arise from those who do have such power -- like, as has already been pointed out, the hyper-sensitivity to threats to the status quo, etc.

This sounds like a good explanation for the above. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. It's striking, too, that the people most ardently defending the corporate sector are the ones which are most negatively effected by their policies. That's quite an impressive feat.