I think the existence of SPACs proves that "due diligence" is a joke now. Everything is based on personalities that are "supposed" to be trustworthy. It's hard to protect morons who think famous people can be trusted. Even a rudimentary understanding of cryptocurrency would show that they are built on hype and maybe illegal transactions. If they are going to go after celebrities for hyping cryptocurrency why doesn't the government go after them for hyping unhealthy food and cosmetic products?

A more important study would be the relationship between girls given princess costumes and being told their princesses and narcissistic, self-centered behavior later in life. :-)

That's for sure! When Frontier took over from Verizon in Ventura County, CA I lost service for almost a month. There were the most incompetent company I have ever dealt with.

Whatever is in the corporate charter is what counts. Good luck getting investors with "let's do what works best for the world". Our best hope is that the concept of "noblesse oblige" comes back into vogue.

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any way to "fix" for-profit corporations because of their charter. The only option is to remove for-profit corporations as a business entity and only leave non-profit corporations. There shouldn't be a need for the protections a corporation offers if the company isn't doing anything illegal.

I believe what people really resent are the "chartered for greed" corporations. Everything they do is to maximize profit which warps even the things they do that "appear" to be from a good motivation. They try and make their company more appealing by donating to charity, claiming some more environmentally friendly product, or enhancing workplace benefits but that generally doesn't make things great for the employees in the long run. That drive for money taints everything the company does and makes it a "soul crushing" environment. No one, not even the CEO, really feels ownership of the company because the charter removes the possibility of "humanizing" the company's decisions.

The government is the only real protection from getting ground-up and spit-out by corporations. Also, as a previous post pointed out, if becomes very expensive to just ignore the problem of people that are unable to work for whatever reason. We would go broke trying to put everyone in prison that was forced to steal because they couldn't work and had no other source of income. No one is more dangerous than someone with nothing to lose. This is why capitalism vs socialism is a ridiculous argument. We need both of them.

When I worked IT years ago it was all about knowledge of the latest technology that counted. As technology moves on, knowledge of older technology (like X.25 or Decnet) just becomes useless so there is little perceived advantage to being older even though the system issues like manageability, reliability, and performance stay somewhat constant. It's the only job I know of where experience works against you! Young people, many times, get to learn the technology before they actually start working which is an enormous advantage. I became frustrated with the greatly increased complexity of technology with little additional benefits and decided it was time to get out before my bad attitude forced me out. It was the best decision I ever made and I would NEVER encourage anyone to get into IT because you WILL "age out" eventually in the private sector.

Duh! Corporations are chartered for greed so it automatically eliminates anyone with compassion from running it. The real problem is that most people don't want to admit that we are all part of the problem. The people that work for the corporations, buy from the corporations or invest in the corporations covers a wide swath of the general public. Where we work and how we spend our money either reinforces or reduces the problem. If people just throw up their hands and say "I don't have a choice" then things will continue in the same direction. Only when more people decide to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem will anything change.

Freedom to Roam doesn't mean you can setup a permanent camp wherever you like. All land is owned by someone and you would have to get permission to stay, which is unlikely.

(sarcastic)Unfortunately, the trickle-down model is correct. The rich let enough money trickle down so people don't get desperate enough to kill the rich.( end sarcastic)

Yes there is. That doesn't mean everyone in the country believes exactly the same thing but this country attracts people who want to live a more materially prosperous life through hard work. In a sense, it engenders a "I got mine now you work hard to get yours" attitude in many people. Public policy is driven by what the majority wants to a great extent so where it differs from the rest of the world it reflects our "American Mentality".

I totally agree. Various food additives cause ADD type symptoms while excess sugar creates a 'brain fog' that makes it hard to concentrate. Unfortunately, crappy food is cheap.

How would you know that unless you WERE an omnipotent super-being? That's like your pet telling you the way you live your life is stupid.

Maybe you could explain your view instead of just being contrarian. What is the meaning of your 100 years, or less, on the planet? Where is the justice in some people being born into wealthy societies while others are born into grinding poverty? I'm willing to drop my religious views if you have a better idea.

Seriously!! Human beings have an incredible power-to-weight ratio, can convert a wide range of hydrocarbons to energy, can self-heal minor damage and you think the fact that air and food go down the same tube is a design flaw?

It's very easy to criticize something we don't really understand. Everyone who thinks humans could be better designed should do so or shut-up.