Comment by baybal2 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by baybal2 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Considering Germany is an economic powerhouse this law probably isn't harming the economy.

Germany is economically successful. But here is few things for you to know about it: 1. the industry taxed near to the limit. 2. Welfare is not cheap by any means. 3. Germany is an ageing country, and the amount of welfare payouts will go even further.

I not fan of idea that a company can be public, nor the form of relationships in between its owners and management that evolved in the USA: 1. I find the idea that a man owning a single share of the company can sue the management to death for doing virtually anything. 2. The subsequent dominance of extreme CYA attitudes that American managers are famous for. 3. The fact that company ownership became an extremely bureaucratised thing.

I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner. My own experience working in public companies: an omnipresent atmosphere of "ownerlessness" and people not minding "leaving things broken" for reasons that they are not paid to fix them. Without a clear "boss" around, work tend descend into being a Brownian motion. And all of that gets progressively worse closer to C-suite offices, if the company is of type that changed few generations of management.

Words of my father: "a collective ownership of business is like life in family where a woman has 10 husbands, all trying to make love to her at the same time."

> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner.

Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not?

> Words of my father: "a collective ownership of business is like life in family where a woman has 10 husbands, all trying to make love to her at the same time."

Quotations aren't even arguments if they come from famous people.

>> I'm a big believer that a business must have an owner.

>Surely you are also a big believer that a country must have a king. If not, why not?

No, I believe that monarchies are weak, and risky. There might be modern day monarchs doing best for their realms, but the chance that after 3-4-5 good successions will come a man "who wrecks it all" is just too high. This is what history has demonstrated.

In case of business, the risks are not human lives. In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market. In such circumstances, business owners are compelled to do well do deter desertions. This is in big contrast to command economies dominated by state businesses. Speaking about command economies, that not necessarily assumes communists countries - just how much of F500 a decade ago were de-facto state co's? GE - with net negative tax rate, GM - needs no explanations, defence companies - being de-facto one with their states in every country, agri businesses with roots in banana republics, dozens of megabanks kept alive by financial life support from taxpayers.

Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies. The problem with monarchies is that a monarch will promote the interests of the monarch, the nobility will promote the interests of the nobility. Only a democracy will promote the interests of everybody. That is true whether we talk about a state or a company.

> In case of a failing business, an employee is free to vote with his feet at any moment, moreover if he is valuable specialist in a competitive market.

A non-democratic economy works for certain people under certain circumstances. That is simply not enough.

Equating democratic elections, the act of freely chosing how you run your society, to what amounts to fleeing a sinking ship is beyond ridiculous. So is calling the US a command economy.

> Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time. That is not the problem with monarchies.

It actually is a recurring problem with monarchies (and often that's how democratic republics get established); heredity is no guarantee of competency.

Nothing is a guarantee of competency. It's not a problem with monarchies, it's a problem with anything involving humans.

True, and democracy here is a big red "emergency brake" button. In a monarchy or de-facto monarchy (all states that saw multiple presidents-for-life from the same family are in that bunch as well) you have none. Only alternatives given to people in them is to start a civil war.

There's always assassination. Look a the Roman Empire - most of the truly catastrophic emperors were either assassinated, or nearly assassinated before they died of other means.

Not that I'm advocating we go back to that or anything.

Your statement seems unfair. The people elected in democracies are not somehow uniquely benevolent and socially driven. They, at least in rolling with your worldview, once again will promote their own interests first. The election aspect changes very little. Our electorate is mostly poorly informed and easily manipulated. Try answering any question by asking 130 million people, of no qualification, after exposing them to months of emotionally charged misinformation, mud slinging, and FUD -- all carried out by the best manipulators money can buy. The answers you're going to get explain how we can have a 15% approval rating for the congress that we put into office.

That said even though democracy is quite an awful system, it's probably the least awful of the alternatives. We, the people, are very unlikely to meaningfully change anything in any given election - but that power is, at least technically, there. Whereas if you have an awful monarch/dictator/life serving republic/etc then your only option is a bit messier.

> The answers you're going to get explain how we can have a 15% approval rating for the congress that we put into office.

If the manipulation is completely and totally successful, then shouldn't they be able to maintain a higher approval rating than just 15%?

After elections individual congressmen become completely invisible to nearly all of the voting public. How many voters could tell you just 5 things, positive or negative, that their congressman did during their last term? People who know nothing about what they're voting on don't suddenly become actively involved after voting.

The only reason people care about the president is because he maintains a high visibility throughout his term. Even then it's very superficial. I'd be extremely surprised if the average voter could list 5 actual effected policy decisions of Obama that they liked/disliked. Yet they will love or loath him in spite of the lack of that knowledge. The various videos demonstrating this effect are my favorite. Individuals will be surveyed on what they think of described "Obama" policies, which are actually Trump policies - or vice versa. Their view on the policy invariably has little to nothing to do with the actual policy, and everything to do with the name attached to it.

So it seems trivial to then maintain high approval ratings during the term (no one knows what you’re really up to, before during and after the term)

Presidency sees a lot of marketing from each side, so high approval ratings might be more difficult to maintain, but congress should be far less of a battleground.

If you’re correct, then theres no reason for them to have 15% approval except out of sheer laziness; just as no one questions them during the election process, no one should be questioning during the term too

Individual members of Congress have high approval readings in their districts, usually. Congress as an institution has a low approval rating, because people hate the 532 members they don't get to vote for, not the three that they do, in part because each member blames results unpopular in their district on the rest of Congress.

I love the 'least awful type of government' line of reasoning.

It sounds like we tried 100s of different things since we got rid of royality and after a lots experiments 'representative' democracy was proven best.

I think it's more the case of the new royality finding it quite comfortable and this is one of the standard FUD lines we get.

Democracy is not a system, it's a principle. The principle that the people rules. Today's representative democracies apply that principle very imperfectly.

The rulers don't have to be particularily benevolent to promote the people's interests if their interests and the people's interests are the same.

> Democracies elect idiots "who wreck it all" all the time.

> Only a democracy will promote the interests of everybody.

Doesn't the first statement contradict the second?

>1. the industry taxed near to the limit. 2. Welfare is not cheap by any means. 3. Germany is an ageing country, and the amount of welfare payouts will go even further.

Want to explain to me how this is even a bad thing? It sounds like the Germans have solidarity for their fellow people/workers and realize everyone should be provided the basics for a peace of mind and overall better workers that can rest and enjoy life outside of work.

American capitalism doesn't have to happen everywhere. It's a system that provides for the few instead of the many, unlike Germany that provides for the many instead of the few

>Want to explain to me how this is even a bad thing?

I believe Germany can do even better if they can find ways to reduce the ratio of people in workforce to welfare recipients. Don't forget, we talk about that in the context of EU. Germany is carrying half of EU on its shoulders.

>it sounds like the Germans have solidarity for their fellow people/workers and realize everyone should be provided the basics for a peace of mind

Doing just "basics for a peace of mind" is doable with not much less, but nevertheless less money. The few developer countries in Asia can show how to do that well. My main criticism is that Germany's welfare is more expensive that that of other countries because not only direct payouts are moderately high, but welfare paid infrastructure and services are taking quite a lot too: lifts for pedestrian overpasses in the middle of nowhere, free transit ticket for people with minimal and non-mobility hampering disabilities, access to free housing (depending on a state) for people with income that qualifies as high in countries just across the border... and on and on

Big issue with all extensive welfare systems in the West is that in them, needs of people in need are not being known by people who are entrusted with administering welfare to them. I can easily pull out many example of welfare states where people in need live miserably. When the welfare does not benefit to the person in need, what's use of it? In that case it just becomes wasted money.

With all my militant atheism, I can give high mark to welfare administrators in the gulf region. Zakat distribution by mosques is very straightforward, addressing needs of people in need in the most straightforward way.

>and overall better workers that can rest and enjoy life outside of work.

I believe a professionals can enjoy life even more if they simply get higher salaries. In that context, I believe that German labour councils serve a good role, making people understand that "they can't milk a dead cow."

It is very good when both sides can come to terms knowing how much money they can extract from the business before it kicks the bucket.

You wrote: "Germany is carrying half of EU on its shoulders." This statement is ludicrous! There is no prosperity transfer of any kind to poorer states in the EU, and a very clear wealth transfer to the center of the EU. May I suggest you read "And the weak suffer what they must" by Yannis Varoufakis?

>It's a system that provides for the few instead of the many, unlike Germany that provides for the many instead of the few

That's a silly argument. US citizens make more on average than German citizens. Both systems provide for the many (with the US arguably providing moreso for that middle of the curve).

The problem is the unfortunate people on the left side of the curve who get hit with medical bankruptcy, a loss of industry, etc. Those people get screwed in the US where there is a better safety net in Germany.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com