Subject:
|
Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 15 Jan 2000 21:17:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2400 times
|
| |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 20:39:19 GMT, "Richard Franks"
<spontificus@__nospam__yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think what you mean to say is that the government is not accountable at
> present, whereas corperations would be directly accountable to the people who
> buy their products, and shareholders.
Government is vastly more accountable than corporations[1] at present.
In both cases, virtually the only way something "bad" ever comes into
the public view is through inquisitive reporters. When a governemnt is
so affected, the people responsible get fired. Permanently. And
control then changes hands, usually. In a company, a few lower lackeys
get fired, and then rehired as head of something else, while everyone
resposible sits tight.
Also, when a government or corporate official gets fired for something
like that, they're almost always rehired either by the same or by
another company in a higher position. See all the unsuccessful "top
managers" who "manage" a company down into bankruptcy, and then get
rehired to do the same somewhere else.
Jasper
[1] Here. It is not my impression that the US is different, nor have i
ever seen evidence supporting that.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Art Debate Was: [Re: Swearing?]
|
| (...) I think what you mean to say is that the government is not accountable at present, whereas corperations would be directly accountable to the people who buy their products, and shareholders. It's still not a solid argument IMO, but it's the (...) (25 years ago, 13-Jan-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
473 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
