Me, too, but it's been difficult 'keeping it all to myself' for so many years.
Now that I've scratched the surface with my first Kindle book, I'm looking forward to lots more.

And if nobody believes, agrees with or understands me... well, I don't see much downside... :)

And it will just remind me of many of the unacceptable ideas I came up with in about 34 years working in technological industries. :)))

Cheers!

Glad you know it all.

I did, above.. and most folks miss it...

"that's also not "root cause" of The Problem until you dig deeper about WHY they had/have such power... and even the answer to THAT question probably won't point to The Root Cause, either!

If you have a point it is masked by lots of other commentary. State your case.

No, although most folks believe that, and THAT is my Point.

Everyone thinks their 'solution' will fix Root Cause, but almost Never have they truly identified ROOT Cause... usually some secondary or tertiary or umpteenth-erary result of Root Cause.

But, once people think they're solving Root Cause, they convince themselves of that, even if their 'solution,' for some mysterious reason, doesn't reverse the tide of The Problem.

I am willing to wait and see if I'm right... or not.
Good Luck.

Already answered.

Sure, but if the 'greatest power is in the hands of banksters', that' also not "root cause" of The Problem until you dig deeper about WHY they had/have such power... and even the answer to THAT question probably won't point to The Root Cause, either!

That's what I'm trying to say. Want to go another round? I Love Socrates!

Government didn't have the power to do what it does prior to 1913, and that legislation was created by and for the banksters. I recognize that it does take complicity by the government 'public servants' but without the banksters support the power of government would be much less and most of the agencies that meddle today could not have been funded. Yes, it also requires consent of the people, but I don't blame people when they have been intentionally misled and conned by looters.
The Root Cause is not government, although when looking at the power government has today it's easy to make that assumption.
Power concentrated in the hands of a few is the problem. The greatest power is in the hands of banksters. Read the Creature From Jekyll Island for the details.

Oh, ffa... i have few arguments with your assertions, but I do assert that to claim that the Root Cause of these problems is "the banksters" is quite wrong!

They are 'merely' responding to market pressures impressed on them by government regulations, and those regulations are there because of the 'nature' of the lawmakers who, in many cases, have been Elected to Office by the general population of the US...

So, if uninformed, ignorant people keep re-electing Congressmonkeys into office who keep creating such laws, I can't start out by faulting those "clever human beings" who, being smart and adaptable, figure out any and every way to get around the laws!

If the Laws (and/or Lawyers) were 'better,' there would be fewer people trying to skirt them.

Or were you not around when the government started raising income tax rates on CxO's? The first thing the BOD's and Compensation Committees of the largest corporations did was to cut upper management's SALARIES and convert their "income" to vehicles not taxed as hard as their 'paychecks.'

To reduce the undesired effects, one must start by Identifying The Real Root Cause.

Virtually nobody does this today, and the results appear Everywhere.

Like blaming 'banksters.'

... so those numbers apparently work ok for them.
There doesn't seem to be an 'attorney shortage' anywhere in the world... least of all, the US...

:)
Y'know... market-clearing prices and all that...

With a contingent fee contract, attorneys get 35% (or some other percent) of the settlement or judgment if they win. And for the cases they inevitably lose, 35% of nothing is...

Rigged, in this case, means the law is rigged, too. Wall St Banksters have been at this for a very long time (as you know.) For the shares held in street name, the brokers still have to notify the shareholders and give them the opportunity to vote the shares, but I suspect few take the time even though it only takes a minute now with the internet. This is how the banksters get away with manipulating share prices on small companies, profiting from making share prices fall, and forcing small companies to sell their developing assets to friends of banksters, thereby maintaining control and eliminating competition. It is no accident that many small companies fail, and it isn't stupidity on the part of the original business owners and inventors in most cases; it's by design. I vote "no" on every director unless I know them personally (i.e., never), and always vote against giving free shares to management and directors unless it is based on specific performance that I approve of. It's a lost cause, I know, but I keep my ethics and don't vote to support looters.

If you were expecting any disagreement on what you wrote, you will be disappointed...

I would, however, not refer to the "game" as 'rigged.'

Virtually everything you described is legal under existing law.

If "investors" are stupid enough to vote the way the Directors suggest all the time, that's not a rigged game, that's stupid players. And many shares are held by companies in 'street names', I believe, and the original investors might not even get a chance to vote at all... although that, again, is 'what they signed up for' at the start.

btw, I was working AT HP long before and for a while after the Compaq purchase. My take on Carly was that her theme was "downsize to success" even if downsizing got rid of the players most likely and capable of bringing success to the company.

I personally, as an 'individual contributor,' suggested several strategies which probably would have worked if anyone at manager levels a few above me had been open to such ideas.

One idea was estimated to have a 3-month payback period, but no money could be allocated to even try it. It was a sad time.

Yes, but there were lots of civilian jobs that were safer, too.

LOL!
Slow in doing the math?
!I didn't even know the math.
Thanks for informing me of the law firm's cut.
I suppose that's the average.

Thanks for taking the time to share the details, MichaelA. (Thanks for risking your life, too.)

Excerpt on the topic of DDT and malaria from James P Hogan's book, Kicking the Sacred Cow

http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/info...

They don't think long term. They only care about what happens in their tenure, i.e., until the free bonus shares are tradeable (usually within 2 years), or the cash bonus is paid on short term performance, e.g., cutting employment cost while ignoring the technical talent lost to competitors, or increasing "sales" or "market share" by overpaying to buy a competitor that has the same unresolved problems, e.g., Fiorina's HP buy of Compaq.

Most shareholders have no voice whatsoever as the brokers hold their shares and can vote if the small investor doesn't take the time to vote them. Directors election are rarely affected by small shareholders. Insiders and Wall St brokers(with short term incentives) are nearly always in control. On the contrary, Wall Street brokers take short positions directly opposite to the buy recommendations they give to small investors. Its a rigged game. There is much more profit in causing market fluctuations than in long term productive gains. Obviously, this is ethically reprehensible.
"At this time, New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) rules allow your broker to vote your shares in their discretion on “routine” proposals when they have not received instructions from the beneficial owner of the shares at least ten days prior to the Annual Meeting. We believe the election of directors and ratification of the selection of our independent registered public accounting firm are routine matters."

Oh, I agree that DDT probably didn't harm a lot of people, but the lack of it caused a LOT of humans to suffer from malaria...

Thanks, in large part, to Rachel Carson.
Yep!

It's not clear that people were harmed by DDT. The best evidence I've seen indicates that raptors may have had eggshell problems but not other birds.

Allo... you were slow in doing the math...
The legal beagles take 35% or more of the 'settlement' in their fees, and the 'remainder' is divided among so many 'injured parties' that none of them tend to get anything close to 'real compensation,' even if they actually suffered harm.
When I get those mailings nowadays, they go directly to Recycling Bin.
And you've got to still have all the original sales slips, too?! Ludicrous. If they knew I was affected, they can damned well find the documentation, too!

Absolutely! In the sense of lack of Critical Thinking, banning DDT rather than exploring ways to deliver its effects while not harming people might have been a good idea, too...

Rachel Carson may have been one of the root causes of The Death Of Critical Thinking....

I'm still collecting data to try to determine who/what/when/where It Started To Die.