I suppose that's true for some countries, but in most countries you can do something about it, even if it takes a lot of work. You can vote different, join transparency organizations and so on.
Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases.
Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt.
Wouldn't this imply that this guy wouldn't have gotten away had people voted "different". Its peoples fault for indirectly voting for this?
> Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases.
I usually simply sell the stocks of company that i no longer believe in. Thats how i vote. What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital.
">>Why would someone vote the same if system is clearly corrupt."
Because the system is not "clearly corrupt", it's just a human organization and it's always going to be some corruption and inefficiency (public or private). You just have to strive to improve it.
">>What do you mean by have no power. Its not mandatory for me to own certain stocks like it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital. "
In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country, that's something that you can do also normally, but probably is better to try to improve it. I believe, that big stockholders practice something called activist investment, where they push for changes.
I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population.
You didn't address this in my previous comment and repeated it here. You are implying that this guy getting away for 15 yrs wouldn't have happened had people voted "different" and its their fault for not "striving" enough?
> I don't think there is any country in the world where is mandatory to go to the hospital, but there is some where not hospital is available to part of the population.
I clearly said "for some people" in my comment. Not sure why you are repeating what i just said in my own comment.
"it is mandatory for some ppl to go to a govt hospital."
> In your analogy, selling stocks is basically leaving the country,
This is not an analogy at all. For starters, I can move my money from bad company to a good company. Almost no one in bad countries is allowed to pack up and leave to a better country. Millions of ppl would move to USA in a heartbeat if that was the case.
> better to try to improve it
Ugh. You keep saying this. Are you seriously suggesting that this is the result of people not joining "transparency organizations" (whatever that means). This is such weird circular logic that can never be dis proven. System is not working because we aren't trying hard enough to make it work.
What I'm saying is not so complicated (maybe I complicated it): any human organization will have the same kind of problems. You seem fixated in public vs. private, I don't think that distinction is so important as you do. Can organizations be fixed? Some organizations can be fixed, normally it's hard work.
I will not go beyond that because it would be a pointless discussion here, maybe with a few hours and a few beers we would arrive to some agreement. Obviously I don't have a so good opinion about private markets as the solver of all problems like it seems you do.
Voting seems unlikely to affect this matter. Federal employees are three times less likely than those in the private sector to be fired. Elected officials come and go, but the permanent bureaucracy lives on. In many places it is essentially impossible to fire a teacher or police officer outside of egregious wrongdoing.
Small stock owners have not more power than voters, even less in some cases.