昨天和今天，Mother Jones杂志刊登了罗姆尼在募捐晚会上讲话的录像，引起轰动。据报道，此事乃前总统卡特的孙子帮助牵线搭桥促成的，为祖父报了一箭之仇。只当了一任的卡特总统离开白宫已经32年了，罗姆尼还在攻击这位在任时政绩不佳、不受欢迎的前总统，想达到打击同是民主党的奥巴马的目的。小卡特气在心里，经常流连在youtube，寻找跟罗姆尼有关的视频。工夫不负有心人，终于找到那么一点蛛丝马迹。他把这一线索提供给了Mother Jones的David Corn。Corn花了四周，终于说服录像的持有者把东西交出来，给2012年的这场选举扔了个不大不小的炸弹 - 详情请见 How a Mother Jones reporter pursued the Romney ‘47 percent’ story。
The anwser is: No. It is a unnatural and artificial system that does not resemble or function as a natural cycle. For it to be sustainable it needs to cycle and allow "cycling" to be able adapt to change. Likewise it is to large a system to be able to adapt to change locally. A representative democracy is inefficient to say the least, a direct democracy (localised) would be better, but is still not ideal.
Different environments require dedicated and fully adapted systems. As with your touchscreen idea, people don't care to vote for leadership if they are starving, they will simply do whatever is necessary to eat. It's a pointless endevour that will only support the "legal" voting in of the next dictator. The ability or freedom to vote doesn't somehow miraculously fill their plates with food either, in fact they will vote for anyone that gives them a meal. Using the UN as a "neutral" enabler is also useless, their policy is still dominated by capitalist dogma (aka WMF, "free" trade vs subsidies, fiat 3rd world debt etc) and they are unable to buck the system despite their supposed good intentions.
I think you hit it on the head in a different way when you said: "Ever wondered what to do with poor African countries that can not afford democracy?" To be able to "afford democracy" we need capitalism to support it. If our consumption and therefore "wealth" needs to be reduced to be sustainable, along with the resulting diversification and de-centralization, what good is the bureaucratic monster, called government, going to be if their are no taxes to support it and benefit its citizens? At first you need to feed them, then cloth and shelter them, educate them, give them some "quality of life", some hope for improvement, before a political system will even have an effect. Who goes to the poles to vote without the hope that their vote will make a difference and change things to the better? Until they have this at a minimum, it will be survival of the fittest or the most corrupt.
I agree. At least Dimon is taking a fat paycheck while JP Morganic is operting in the black.
"Citigroup, the financial services giant, with a tax refund of $144 million based on prior losses, paid CEO Vikram Pandit $14.9 million in 2011, despite an advisory vote against it by 55 percent of shareholders." --as per Huffingtonpost
哈哈，挑战一下随便兄哈，明养鸭子暗养鸡，哪一个好？俺看都好不到哪里去。JPMorgan 要是不里通国库由政府和美联储护着，Jamie Dimon拿多少钱乃商业行为，外人无权置啄；但是华尔街“Head I win, tail you lose”就是两回事了，所以有OWS(Occupy Wall Street)呀！ICBC乃国有银行，可比性不大。
如果各国政府不从此不再注资，世界上所有的大银行(包括ICBC)让他们 Mark to Market 都要破产，几无幸免。
Talking about how the american system is fucked up, here is the peep show:
Jiang Jianqing (姜建清), head of ICBC (中国工商银行行长) - the world's most profitable bank, earns an annual salary of $308,000 (including bonus)for 2011. Jamie Dimon, who is both chairman and chief executive officer of JPMorgan, was awarded total 2011 compensation of $23 million. 姜's salary is translated into $9,400 for the every $1B in profit for the ICBC. Dimon's salary is translated into $1.21 million for every $1B in profit for the JP Morgan. The differential is 130X! Jaundiced teabaggers may refute that 姜's actual income is not the paycheck only. There must be bribery and kickback money hidden under 姜's bedroom mattress. They are probably right. But that is exactly the point I am trying to make: China's law makes any unproportional rewards like 姜's "grey income" illegal, while the "Americana" law protects Dimon's insatiable greed! 姜 may feel like sitting over a ticking bomb on his mattress but Dimon is laughing all the way to the bank and gloating over small poeple like you and me!
