[Sussex] Putting the World to Rights

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 12 January 2003 at 14:35 The ol' tealeg wrote:
> Afternoon Steve ;)
Good morning

Lots of slippage - where we agree I see no point in keeping it in.

> On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 12:36:29 +0000
> Steve Dobson <steve.dobson at krasnegar.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>                           I agree with everything Steve says about
> parental responsibility, but I also think it is naive to think that
> companies will do what is "right" or "good" without being legally
> restrained.  The highest objective of any company (note the word
> "company" rather than "business") is to protect and increase the value
> of shares in that company and to try to pay dividends upon them - this
> is the law of the land, only where a company feels that doing what is
> "good" or "right" will result in higher value to the shareholder are
> they _allowed_ to give it priority - we as consumers have to convince
> companies that fairtrade and fairplay are the best routes to
> profitability and growth - as Dar Williams says, "We can play 
> the greed right into our hands".  

100% agree.  It is the law and how it can be used that is, in the end,
the major factor in how a company (or a person) operates.  Companies 
have to look at the bottom line first because a low profit make the
company open to a take over.  If the law was changed to make takeovers
more difficult, and the stock holders considered the ethics of the
company as well as the dividend then things would be different.

I think the next revolution (on the way companies work) will not come from
the USA.  They are to price centric.  As has been pointed, on /. and
the Register, US consumers will not pay $500 for a laptop that is small
and/or light, the Japanese do.

Like wise the cost of a social change to companies will not be tolerated
by US consumer.  Look at how any American gapes when they see the Tax on
our goods, services and wages in Europe.  Most of these extra taxes go
on social projects.  Americans do pay this tax in other ways - medical
insurance for instance.  Having travelled in the US I don't think they
get better value for money than we do over here.  Products in the US are
often stripped to the bone - we may pay more over here but we get more.
At lease when buying an MR2.   [Getting to far off topic - the Topic
Police will get me.]

>   [T]he government is the only elected body we have for creating law -
> everything then passes through the house of lords (an unelected body),
> all other laws are made in court by trial and precedence - again by
> unelected bodies (ultimately the house of lords or one of the European
> courts - all unelected) if we rely on anyone to act for us, and
> represent _us_ then it is our elected government - right now that
> government is more willing to listen to wealthy foreigners like Bill
> Gates and Kenneth Thomson than to anyone of us.  When you talk about
> being out of touch - I agree - but right now MP's have a conflict of
> interests - their own income from association with wealthy people and
> companies is often in direct opposition to what is good for 
> the rest of the people in the country.  Big companies can afford to lobby 
> for their needs, they do not need privaleged access - we, the people,
> have that same right.  Right now Bill Gates has more influence other 
> government IT policy than the british IT industry does, or than your or
> I as individuals - if you don't see something wrong there then I must
> say I don't agree.

Of course I agree with what you've said, but I think you've missed out
some important points.

  1). The House of Lords, while unelected, is powerless.  At best they
      can suggest changes or delay a bill - which in the long run as
      very, very little effect on the British people.  [Tail and 
      precedence is power in the hands of the people, it won't come
      to court unless:
       a). The Police/Government decided to take me to court, or
       b). You decided to take me to court.
      Ministers can't really interfere in the court; process when then
      try it rarely works and generates a lot of bad press.]

  2). I acknowledge that the European Court is the highest court in
      Euro-land.  But the way I understand European law to be implemented
      it requires each member state to pass local laws to the same effect.
      As a result of the difference in implementation between the 
      member states the Irish electorate was able to stall the whole
      European process for a while.  All the Irish Government could 
      do was to make them vote again, and again "until they got it
      right".

  3). Of course big companies can afford to pay for professional lobbies
      to "inform" MPs on an issue.  But there are other voices that MPs
      listen to that the companies have no control over.  A small group
      of drivers managed to force the Government into a U-turn on it's
      petrol and transport polices.

What I'm suggesting here is that the real power in politics has, is and
always will, lie with the people.  Look at the Russian Revolution (both 
of them), the fall of the Eastern Block Communist Governments.  If the 
masses revolt then governments fall.

> > Okay, we're different; we're educated, we're interested in a wide
> > number of issues and we're outspoken on issues we care about.  But the
> > general downbeat flavour of your post can lead those less educated
> > into thinking that there is nothing they can do.
> 
> Not at all.  They have to be actively aware that every time they take
> out their wallets they weild just as much power as when they going into
> a voting booth.  Things the masses need to learn:
> 
> 1. If you have an opinion express it - if you keep it to 
> yourself you'll never change anything.

Agreed
 
> 2. You _must_ vote.  If you don't like any candidates then spoil your
> paper - the right to vote is _EVERYTHING_ our society stands for: right
> now our government is less representative of the view point of the
> masses than Gareth Gates!

No you _should_ vote.  Note the political impact of the mass not
bothering at the last general election.  That is very different to 
spoiling your ballot paper.  At one time I would have agreed with
you but now I think at apathy is a legitimate political stance.
 
> 3. Debate may seem pointless but debate is the only way to form a
> knowledge of the world as it _really_ is - like sound and vision - if
> you look with one eye or hear with one ear then you cannot percieve
> depth of direction - a point of view is the same.

How can I not agree with that, were debating right now.  My problem is
at present that I'm only getting a stereo picture.  Come on everyone
else on this list - don't just leave it to Geoff and me :-)

> Yes but the editorial of those papers is not controlled by the writers,
> they are instruments for their owners exercised by their mad-dog
> editors.  I've twice been to dinner with one P. Morgan (editor of the
> M/rr0r) as he is a member of Newick cricket club (as our my parents in
> law).  If you think he is an intellegent, reasonable man then you are
> speaking from a position of naivity - his politics are in line with
> those of Henry VIII, his treatement of women is about the same and
> frankly their is strong evidence that he uses the paper as an 
> instrument for his own personal gain (just ask the FSA).

Okay, I'll give you that.  But it's only one paper, there are others.

> > I believe that having a positive attitude helps; that one person can
> > make a difference.
<snip>
> Again I agree... in the last month I have: [...]

But the posting I replied to had a very downbeat feel to it.  I just
had a point to make and your e-mail allowed me to make it.  I know you
to be an active, positive person.

We've debated more than anyone else on this list, and over very minor
differences in our PoVs.  I know you to be someone that can read between
the lines.  I was hoping to start a debate on how to debate, to encourage
others to join in.  My apologies for this miss-firing and causing offence.

Steve