Elect, Shun

Well, I guess there's an election coming up.  The other day, while sitting around the sweatshop cafeteria, I asked BW a random question that came up.  Should world leaders own stock?

Now, hear me out:  the president before this one, apparently, carried a lot of Haliburton stock.  Coincidentally, his decisions were somewhat .. martial in nature.  When he left Office, he bequeathed to a token successor some of the worst debt and continued obligations I think I've ever seen; in the spectrum of transitions, I think this would stand out as the flaming poop-bag left on the doorstep.  I've read articles suggesting Haliburton factored very well in foreign engagements, though, and is a very successful company.

I wouldn't suggest for a second that our world leaders are anything but the most upstanding citizens, even if I've bandied about archetypes in throwaway speech for months.  I've characterized one potential leader as a seditious provincialist, and another as a slack-jawed numbskull.  I've clearly indicated my fears that the lazy fair-weather carpet-bagger and scary deviant (which I wouldn't leave my kids with for an hour - even when he takes off the red nose and make-up) are looking to clone the worst ideas possible for both our medical and defense sectors.  (no, really:  take the worst idea imaginable, for the most provably ineffective policies and that's their idea)  But I'll not go as far as suggest that, beyond their provincial and ideological shirt-sightedness, that they'd bend the policy of an entire nation to suit their financial portfolio.

Not consciously, anyway.  but what about unconsciously?  It's been well-repeated that MSCE-holders only know one solution to any problem, that Microsoft keeps people recommending only its product because it churns out these techies who know know one company's products at all and can't possibly fairly recommend any other possible solution to a given problem - say, email - despite how bad the Microsoft products actually get.  When the choices are fewer it's simpler - not easier - to choose, is a rule I've repeated.  Even given the abysmal performance and security in some products, I see them recommended by 'experts' again and again.  The two worst applications in the world, ever, are the most expensive by far, the least versatile and nearly the most popular, barely work on the world stage and inter-operate with almost nothing.

Microsoft claimed it always acted in the interests of its
customers. This statement alone should carry a prison sentence.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6217

How about our world leaders?  To have stock in Haliburton, to name one company, especially a lot of stock, makes one naturally follow the company's achievements, hopes and dreams.  This makes a person draw closer to that company, given how we tend to liken ourselves to things we've been into for a while ("People get used to what they're accustomed," a certain car salesman used to say).  In the same sense that the stereotypical MCSE graduate only knows one solution to any problem, I can see where someone steeped in the idea of invading and pacifying areas using the newest martial tech will more easily consider that as a way of 'helping' others, vs other solutions, and it's not a conflict of interest when the intent is helping others and not oneself;  that's just the indirect long-term result.

"those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end,
for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
 -- C. S. Lewis

So, and here's the question.  Despite election laws requiring (some) world leaders to divest themselves from their stock portfolios so it can't be a direct influence, should we be basking many of our decisions on where a given leader's money is or was placed?  Should we avoid candidates with too much money in Pfizer or BMG, since it would imply a strong patent-troll outlook or push us to a health care system which will line the pockets of corporations with the skin of our countrymen?  If we choose an ex-union rep, will we perpetuate a system keeping potentially lazy shovel-leaners running our buses, maintaining our roads, cleaning our hospitals?  What kind of (former) stock portfolio and group affiliation do we look for?

And given our own leanings, affiliations and subscriptions, are we qualified to vote?  I guess there's so many of us that it should even out, on our side, but I worry about that.

"Things would be easier if I was a dictator."
--George W. Bush, May 2001,
upon leaving White House Press Room

In the end, I'm just gonna write my own name down, and I'm counting on you to do the same.  I promise my dictatorship will be a benevolent one, to reign in just the outrageous spending in healthcare, to revert a lot of the freedoms taken from us .. but as long as I abolish the cancer-ridden scanners at airports and the molestation alternative, I think I'm in.