Austin Improv

York99 wrote: Marc, what I'm saying is that there are two problems here. The US law is a problem, but changing that probably wouldn't do much. All it would do would be to take the ethical cover away from companies going overseas. But they would probably still do it for competitive reasons. The fact is that labor in other countries is cheaper. It's cheaper because those workers don't demand the high standards of American workers. And until they do or until there is something else (tariffs? embargoes? lower US worker standards? higher foreign worker standards?) that makes keeping these jobs in the US a benefit to the corporations, there's nothing to change the current trends.

I guess my main point was underlined in the article that Brockman linked: "We can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law that says the pursuit of profit takes precedence over the public interest."

You're absolutely right, there are multiple problems, only some of which fall under the reach of our laws here, but even though amending those laws won't flat-out solve anything, it's certainly a positive step.

Marc Majcher wrote:

York99 wrote: Marc, what I'm saying is that there are two problems here. The US law is a problem, but changing that probably wouldn't do much. All it would do would be to take the ethical cover away from companies going overseas. But they would probably still do it for competitive reasons. The fact is that labor in other countries is cheaper. It's cheaper because those workers don't demand the high standards of American workers. And until they do or until there is something else (tariffs? embargoes? lower US worker standards? higher foreign worker standards?) that makes keeping these jobs in the US a benefit to the corporations, there's nothing to change the current trends.

I guess my main point was underlined in the article that Brockman linked: "We can make corporations more responsible to the public good by amending the law that says the pursuit of profit takes precedence over the public interest."

You're absolutely right, there are multiple problems, only some of which fall under the reach of our laws here, but even though amending those laws won't flat-out solve anything, it's certainly a positive step.

The article lays out that part of the problem well, but the solution it offers seems like an open door for legal nightmares in the very unlikely event that the new provision was successfully written into the law.

York99 wrote:The article lays out that part of the problem well, but the solution it offers seems like an open door for legal nightmares in the very unlikely event that the new provision was successfully written into the law.

Yah, jeez - we'd probably have to get a corporate lawyer to write it.

Yes, I am that cynical.

Hey America, Meet John Doe:

Full Movie
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFNdy1rbeaw[/youtube]

"John Doe Speech" Scene
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqpNI4232qg[/youtube]

"Heelot" Scene
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYrr1oD8w-w[/youtube]

"Kill it' Scene
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUfI8yDF6hI[/youtube]

I just saw this article. Pretty crazy stuff.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... yJWAJu4AhO

It's about a business that is nearby the Occupy Wallstreet movement, and the threats and entitlements they pursue from this nearby business.

I went to check out the Occupy Austin area downtown a while back, and of course there were a lot of intelligent nice people out there protesting who I chatted it up about everything, but gee wiz, I saw some pretty crazy people out there and probably about 10-14 accounts of mid street jaywalking (one or two times carrying with a whole tent) within 20 minutes. But I guess only after seeing the way a few (a few - not all) people acted, I could possibly see this happening in the article. But otherwise, it just seems ridiculous that people would do that.