51–60 of 92 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is speculation based on how he structured facebook's stock as well as his new years resolution, to travel all over the US and talk to people about the issues they care about. It is the sort of step that someone would make before running for political office.
And don't forget the announcement where he said he's no longer an atheist and religion is important.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative. Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust. He would still hav…
Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.
I was going to post asking what experience Mark has in government but then I remembered the American population just voted to elect a reality TV 'star' and rich-from-daddies-money mediocre businessman as President. So yeah I guess Mark is highly qualified in that he has several times Trump's net worth.
Another way to describe Trump is that he ran a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period, created a world famous brand associated with quality and luxury, created a tv show that dominated ratings for a decade, and crushed two political dynasties that have held power for almost 40 years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It suggests he may be Buddhist. You can't really use a religion other than Christianity if you're pandering to Americans.
I, for one, would not put limits on the ability of politicians to pander in ways that I would find implausible. But in the case of religion (even Buddhism), I find it plausible. Demographics and expectations about religion are changing. Religious belief and alignment does appear to be softening. See: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/11/03/u-s-public-becoming-less-... More broadly, I think the models of cognitive dissonan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then don't vote for Zuckerberg? Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative. Granted, it might be a concern that he would use his position to help his company, which is why officials usually have to put their assets in a blind trust. He would still hav…
Americans have this odd tendency to vote for celebrities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Technically, if he were to be a representative or other elected government official, he would be obligated to uphold the interests of his constituents, not the company he owns, just like any other representative." "Technically" it would be a massive conflict of interest and probably illegal. Having someone own/control/influence a major chunk of the media establishment and also have public responsibility is a pretty…
That is what blind trusts are for. This isn't a new thing. People who own businesses have been elected to office before. Yes, there can be "conflicts of interest", but it's not like he's going to sneak into office and start making Facebook-friendly laws without anyone realizing he owns Facebook. "Probably illegal" is unhelpful non-information. It's either illegal or not. We do have a process for becoming a candidate…
There's no such thing as a 'blind trust' for a media empire, because everyone in the empire knows exactly who is in charge and who pays their salary. Patronage does not stop because of lack of communication.
Do you think that if Trump owned FoxNews, but was also President - that Fox reporter would feel totally free to investigate Trump on whatever terms they wanted? Knowing that he owns them? And can come back in a few years and end their careers?
No.
In fact, a media org. owned by a public representative might be likely do all they can to back him, cover up scandals, paper over ugly things, and prop him up. Then they would get big fat promotions and guaranteed career progress down the line. Among other things, such as possibly favorable treatment and exclusive access by the political regime.
There's no way to segregate a media empire from it's leadership temporarily.
As for 'illegal or not' - nobody knows the answer to that, because we don't know what Zuck wants to do.
Moreover - for the Office of Pres - it's unclear. Trump has an army of lawyers trying to determine whether it's legal or not for him to keep his holdings. Some are indicating that state use of Trump hotels is illegal. Some are indicating that having his children run the empire would be illegal. It hasn't been tested in courts, and the laws are unclear - for President.
But the legality if it moot: someone with massive control ownership of the media should not be able to hold public office, it's one of the most glaringly obvious examples imaginable. (Aside from someone in public office handing out contracts to companies they own directly.)
Why does this sound like the plot to a dystopian sci fi novel? Facebook's interests aren't anything close to my interests.
The problem with dystopian sci-fi novels is that their plots are usually dependent on social dynamics that don't capture the full range of human behavior. For example, you don't read many sci-fi novels that have a character like John D. Rockafeller (who used his wealth and power to stand up to Prohibition). It's worth keeping in mind that some of America's founding fathers were also among the wealthiest people in the…
So, the 'wealthy' was a significantly less elite group. Basically, the top 1,000 people back then where the equivalent of the top 100,000 people now, not the top 1,000.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Another way to describe Trump is that he ran a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period, created a world famous brand associated with quality and luxury, created a tv show that dominated ratings for a decade, and crushed two political dynasties that have held power for almost 40 years.
"a business that created more value than the S&P 500 (the top 500 businesses on US stock exchanges) over a 30 year period" What's this based on?
Admittedly questionable source, but I've seen it elsewhere and the approximation seems fair.