| Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Eating in the Britainlands.; What? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 23 2012, 01:36 PM (6,947 Views) | |
| Grey | Mar 30 2012, 09:48 AM Post #191 |
![]()
|
From what I understand there isn't a difference other then in a socialist-democracy they keep the capitalist means of production, and in a democratic socialism they don't. In that case there is still the likelihood of corruption and career politicians. Ok from what I understand, it is a take on the capitalist system where the consumers have more control then the producers? If that is the case it seems very similar to my take on a socialist democracy, with some obvious changes. Edited by Grey, Mar 30 2012, 09:52 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 30 2012, 10:01 AM Post #192 |
![]()
|
Ah, I see! I saw that but wasn't sure if that was all or not. Then in that case I fully agree, a socialist-democracy makes more sense. Although I do wonder if there could be elements of economic democracy incorporated (mainly the power of the stakeholders outweighing the greedy shareholders. Or at least having an equal input on the situation, so the company is 1/2 shareholder's money focussed but 1/2 stakeholder's needs focussed) |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 30 2012, 10:04 AM Post #193 |
![]()
|
As far as I am aware that is part of a socialist democracy. The only difference I can see between that and an economic democracy are all the other little socialist aspects like government control of healthcare and suchness. |
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Mar 30 2012, 10:10 AM Post #194 |
![]()
|
I don't really support economic democracy. The public already has a big say in how buissnesses work. If they don't like you, they won't buy, so they have to change. But, taking the power away from the people running the company would be wrong. I mean, if you ran a buissness, would you want your power to make decisons regarding that buissness taken away and put into the hands of the public, whose ideas and opinions change every few months? I sure wouldn't. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 30 2012, 10:16 AM Post #195 |
![]()
|
Here comes in the debate of "The few people who 'deserve' the power" vs. "the many people who are effected by the power." |
![]() |
|
| Dantos4 | Mar 30 2012, 10:30 AM Post #196 |
![]()
|
Yeah I agree Greysoul. Well then in this case, maybe you could offer the stakeholders some limitations when it comes to financial risks, and give them more say when it comes to ethical risks? I see exactly where RandomMan is coming from. It is harsh to limit either side, really. As on one side, there would be a company who is only controlled by shareholders and only motivated by money. So they could exploit the common man in order to gain a profit. On the other side, you have a load of guys going "but what about this guy? what about that guy? vetoing everything just because of minor problems..." Is there some form of compromise that could be made? (we will need to do this in order to build a country! God dammit! :P) For example, a system where the shareholders represent the financial interests of the company and the stakeholders represent those who are affected by the decisions. Could we create some form of system where the stakeholders still get to make decisions, yet the stakeholders 'police' their decisions to make sure they are not screwing everybody else over. "Fair, ethical competition" or something like that? |
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Mar 30 2012, 10:31 AM Post #197 |
![]()
|
I'm not saying that consumers don't deserve any power. They are the ones keeping the buissness running. However, I don't believe they should be the ones making the decisions for the buissness, since they may not know all the information. I believe the ability to make suggestions regarding the company is a good idea. It allows the shareholders to do something they might not have thought of, yet still gives them the final say in the matter. |
![]() |
|
| RandomMan1 | Mar 30 2012, 10:34 AM Post #198 |
![]()
|
Yeeeeeeaaaaaah, if we plan to work together on a country, we'll all have to have individual jobs (like ministers) or else we'll just bump heads and get nowhere.
|
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 30 2012, 10:34 AM Post #199 |
![]()
|
No. You are both 100% and completely wrong because you aren't saying thinks I like to hear. You are making up words and being total British cigarets. |
![]() |
|
| Grey | Mar 30 2012, 10:35 AM Post #200 |
![]()
|
Just like in real life. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |






3:21 AM Jul 11