I can change one word of your sentence, altering its meaning without changing its truthfulness:
"I think an observation of history shows that business gravitates toward the corrupt."

We can repeat the experiment with "finance" or "the church", or what have you. There will be plenty of supporting anecdote, and quite a bit of usable data that could support such statements.

So? There is likely a deeper, foundational feature - or flaw - which invites organisations of people to corruption of intent and personal reward, over commitment to mission.

Yet we need to organise toward common and mutual purpose. The establishment of an American Government prior to 1789 was intended to focus on the beneficial aspects of that mutual purpose, and hold in abeyance the opportunities for exploitation.

It worked, more or less, for a little while.

I think they DO have names!

Thurston Howell III and "Lovey" Howell are two, that come to mind.

:-)

Actually, the problems with management by the Federal Government appear to be features introduced to serve those who own it.

Magically proclaiming that government is inherently a flawed way to accomplish anything, bordering on the criminal and immoral? That is a fantastical proposition. The corollary is stating that the only objective around which people can operate toward shared purpose is ambition and blind, greedy profit incentive.

The people who sponsored Reagan called him "The Great Communicator", because he so effectively broadcast this type of brainwashing. This type of belief has become the principal defect of the American character.

That is if one can use the mythical beast of national-character, to make a point... :-)

It's been done. I don't know if that adds any value along the chain, tho'.

All US airwaves are "public" but regulated.

Mail makes you angry? That's a likely a transferal displacement reaction.

Why do you feel that your mother didn't love you, and when did you first become aware of this feeling? :-)

Right. The existing economy of institutionalised graft, extortion and threat of incarceration is infinitely preferable.

Inefficiency is a point of view - a pipe through which one may look at a system. Efficient to what end? Are you accumulating fat for winter? Or are you efficiently burning everything from your intake?

Some inefficiencies are virtues.

A LOT more.

BTW: I asked my Dominatrix for a "happy ending".

She sang me "The Pina Colada Song", and sent me home.

Trope.

Truism.

Bad analogy.

I could go on...

Unlike the REAL pretense of servicing financial derivatives, or selling cable subscriptions to watch "It's Always Hot in Cleveland"?

All value in an economy is not transactional profit.

In fact, that is the difference between an "Economy" and a "Marketplace". The difference is not taught, and in fact? The confusion is actively promoted.

But the difference between these two things is analogous that between the concepts of "Strategic" and "Tactical".

Oh yeah. Highly and effectively managed...

I remember when Reagan had the limits on commercial message length lifted. All night movies disappeared in months, around '82.

Welcome, Real Estate Seminar Infomercial! John Wayne and Bette Davis gave way to Thom Vu and Sy Sperling.

Culture? Died.

One IS a constructive activity. :-)

I won't labour arguments about that. It is fairly self-evident that one scenario involves violation of property, coupled with an element of coercion and violence. Let's not think of the ramification of encouraging a certain segment to violent, destructive action, while inuring another segment to the inevitability of such violence...

The other involves a sequence of activities that generate marginal commercial value and opportunity for greater social benefit.

So.

Mail carriers too, had their own "greatest generation". :-)

Signaled with lamps, lit in the church steeple. "One if by land..."