Quote from: BitMagic on November 06, 2011, 07:44:34 AM

I don't think the issue is management. It's about incentive. Private firms fall under the same problems of human management that public ones do, because of their human fallibility, by your characterization. The question is what is the driver of decision-making that is most responsive to actual human misery? "The bottom line" surely perpetuates this misery when the interests of the meek do not align with the interests of the rich. Any representation, however broken, is better than none.

In the US, specifically, the private sector worries about public opinion if it affects profits. That happens when people are both 1) wise to the problem, and 2) manage to find a way to undermine profits for their personal needs (which is very, very difficult to do). The public sector worries about public opinion when people simply show up on their door, physically. The representative system, however broken, requires positive public opinion to function. The unrepresentative "free market" only requires ignorant buyers, and they spend enormous amounts to make sure that ignorance abounds.

Again, good points. We seem to be talking about the same thing, just from different angles: I view management as ignoring public opinion because the incentive that drives its motive is coming from an unintended source, primarily corporations and related organizations (especially financial firms) with enough influence to affect the human fallibility in management positions (i.e. buying/lobbying politicians).

If a population is dis- and misinformed, or even actively deluding itself, a "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" situation can arise. This was exactly what happened with America's transition from Bush to Obama. How many Occupy Wall Street protesters realize just how dependent the world's economies are on major financial institutions and the consequences that would result if they actually did fail? At this point, the consequences would likely cause a lot of deaths in the developed world.

A free market naturally promotes a meritocracy (it also demands self-responsibility) with full representation based on transfer of wealth ("voting with your dollars"), otherwise corporate profits wouldn't mean anything. No centrally-managed representation necessary; it's currently the closest thing to a direct democracy in existence. Government has acted as a single point of failure: while regulation used to protect against predatory actions, the regulated and regulators are now effectively the same; the result is that regulation harms those it used to protect and protects those it was meant to guide.

Direct democracy certainly wouldn't have been a workable system without a highly connected society and an equally pervasive economic structure. I think the supporting infrastructure has been viable for over 20 years, but existing access, social awareness and perspectives simply haven't developed until recently. Even the potential of a meritocracy can be confusing or intimidating for some people. Free markets aren't perfect, as there will always be facets that can be taken advantage of, but the flexibility and freedom offered are far more than arises from central management - especially as it ages.

Quote from: BitMagic on November 06, 2011, 07:44:34 AM

Don't get me wrong. Bureaucracy sucks, hard. But you can protest bad bureaucratic decisions and see large-scale policy change and protection. When you successfully boycott business, all you get is "less bad."

I agree to a large extent. Two points to touch on: success can be defined quite a few ways, and certain forms of protest are more effective than others.

The only thing that sustains a government is its power base - the population. I don't know of any bankers or politicians who build railways or design water treatment plants (or ever have; pols coming from real work environments have become rare). If the people are working and maintain the nation, the government can function. Once insulated from the population, but still reaping the benefit of support, it is free to go against public opinion.

A similar situation arises with corporations; vendor lock-in can be highly detrimental to clients as the company can then force a direction. If the business is boycotted, it may make concessions to a "less bad" point, but unless it rearranges its structural behavior it is almost guaranteed to fail. Profit is generally a much more rapid indication of decision validity than any feedback in politics, which can more readily be distorted or misguided. In any case, when support erodes, governments and businesses must either adapt or die.

The difference between the kind of success in protesting that leads to more of the same versus real change is use of alternatives which make the offending institutions irrelevant. In the Bank Transfer Day article, it was pointed out that ~400,000 people withdrawing their assets from major banks would start to cause a real issue. You can bet Bank of America would have to change (if it can) or lose relevance as a financial firm (if gov't bailouts didn't occur). That's the kind of protesting that would also force genuine change in government. It's already happening with persistently elevated unemployment levels (and associated expiration of benefits), but I think the tipping point is still a ways off.

I can see the potential for instituting change by sheer force of direct protest, but it will still be quite a while before there are enough Ron Pauls in American government to shift the tide. In effect, that form of protest is like a frontal siege on a fortress - even with persistently overwhelming numbers, heavy losses will be incurred. Wouldn't it be faster and less destructive to starve the ivory tower inhabitants out?