Men who can, do. Men who can't, blame women, feminists, people of color, H1Bs, and pretty much anyone but themselves.
From what I read the steel, coal and general chemistry industries are quite bad. Apple has actually tried to clean up with their vendor requirements.
You can post all day on Slashdot, but that isn't like putting your professional life on the line and giving it a go.
You see, no mention about my own position on this. Just a chain of cause-and-effect elements.
Totally skewed by your own perceptions, which are incorrect.
You see, under a free and global market there's no way you can avoid (some) corporations to grow to high level; then there's no way you can avoid them (because they are so big) bribing or lobbying government to pass laws in their favour, then rinse an repeat.
This is an assertion without foundation. You're dismissing any of the many corrective features of consumers and competition in the market. You're also assuming that there is no corrective mechanism for corruptions in your assumed democratically elected representative body. You have a lot of assumptions of elements in your model that are not necessary for free markets to exist and thrive. Indeed, history tells us that even huge and abusive corporations like Standard Oil cannot continue indefinitely. Look carefully at the history and you'll see that the "trust busting" activities of the Federal government during that episode was driven by corrupt ambitions of politicians, and the market was ALREADY CORRECTING. Standard Oil was losing market share, and competition, as well as blowback from high-level consumers, was working to bring things back into equilibrium.
Besides, we don't have anything better, or even as good, on a large scale.
Only when you cherrypick your examples.
No need for that. People that complain about capitalism never want to look at more than, at most, about 150 years of history. Look at a minimum of 800-1000 years if you want a significant sample size.
Please, first define capitalism
WTF? So you're going to ask a question like this as some sort of trap, where you pick apart everything I said. I guess you picked this up from Sean Hannity. Not taking the bait, sorry. Find your own definition. It's not hard. Keep in mind that in a free market (that's what I'm talking about, free market capitalism), the producers chase consumer resources. Consumers call the shots by voting for the best producers with their money. It requires enough regulation to prevent violence and fraud from having much of an impact. There's one of the issues with Somalia. It also requires limits on regulation to prevent THAT from having a significant impact on markets. Heavily regulated markets incentive producers to focus their efforts on influencing the regulating authority instead of serving consumer demands.
I'll tell you how cronyism/corporatism becomes unavoidable.
... in your twisted mind that values the well being of the collective more than the rights of individuals, I'm sure it is. Save it for someone that buys your idea that benevolent dictatorships can remain benevolent for any significant length of time.
If North Korea bombed Sony in Japan, It would be US responsibility.
The bigger issue here is that there is an other country fighting to prevent free speech. By taking down and *Threatening* them. This isn't some small set of wackos but an actual government. So it is a big deal.
I didn't want to see the movie, but now I do just to make a point.
Someone is going to have to dismantle the Pandora's box that is the DPRK.
S. Korea and the US have been putting it off for decades and China is finally getting PO'd and worried a N. Korea fall will result in millions crossing their border instantly looking for food.
It couldn't cost as much as Afganistan.
CPU and power increase for encryption is negligible for most sites.
The real cost is getting a certificate from a site that the browser will recognize.
Those are expensive especially if you want a site for a hobbie or a supplemental income.
But capitalism *is* the problem: current cronyism/corporatism/fascism seems to be an unavoidable outcome of capitalism
Why? Because you say so? Or because you've seen it *sometimes* happen? I can certainly see that it's happened, but claiming it's an "unavoidable outcome" is simply an assertion without support. In fact, it seems to be a false one, since capitalistic markets have existing in many places throughout history without those issues surfacing.
just as tiranny seems to be an unavoidable outcome of comunism.
Communism doesn't necessarily require an oppressive authority, that's just how it's usually implemented. In small groups, it works very well without a powerful leadership involved, but in large groups it becomes difficult to enforce the required contributions because of the complexity of the matrices of so many relationships. Communism should not require exchanging of tokens for resources, but "Communist" governments never seem to be able to eliminate it.
Maybe your "pure" capitalism is free of those problems, but then comunism is also problem-free... in theory.
Nothing is free of problems when it involves humans. Free market capitalism, however, has the best historical track record for improving living conditions. The biggest problem with it in the US today, IMHO, is the ability to buy and sell representatives and administrators. These people are not supposed be commodities, they are supposed to regulate the markets just enough to maintain a competitive environment in which consumers retain power over the producers. I don't think there is an easy answer to that problem, especially with such a large proportion of the population uninvolved and susceptible to marketing.
The abortion is a distraction cause.
Most people have a feeling one way or another on it. Which is good because it means you can keep a good part of the population who otherwise would vote for the other party on your side.
Many of the evangelical religious groups would actually support the democratic party if it weren't for the abortion issue.
A lot of women's groups would vote republican if it weren't for the abortion issue.
Micosoft made its fortune off of the Desktop market.
Windows, and Office. + The slue of apps that support the two. Programming, Servers, IE...
Now not everyone wants or needs a desktop.
They didn't get much effort in getting Mobile. Zune, Windows Phone, the PC makers are kinda floundering on Windows Mobile tablets.
Their XBox gaming is a fickle market. They are in way too tight race with Sony, then you have the mobile market taking up a lot of the indie game market. Screwups like they did with the XBox One launch can cause major issues. Forcing people to choose an other gaming system before the release.
Having the vendor lock in, just isn't working... Too many Rich HTML web applications out there, meaning people are not even caring if they are on Microsoft Server of LAMP.
In order for Microsoft to last for the future they will need to be more Open. So those
I like my house, I like to stay inside my house... However if I feel like I am stuck in my house I will want to leave it.
Making microsoft open and allowing a way out, means people are not coming up with reasons to leave.
You do know that all the blocks have already been bought up, right?
Of course you don't. Hell, you probably don't even know what I mean.