[brenden2]

Unfortunately there's little visibility into this, so we can raise our pitch forks and go after companies with angry mobs, but at the end of the day we don't really know what's going on inside every company.

The law makers are the ones who write the cheques and make the system the way it is. The real problem is how laws are made and how the government functions.

[adaisadais]

> The law makers are the ones who write the cheques and make the system the way it is. The real problem is how laws are made and how the government functions

Amen x 1,000,000. We elected these people whether we voted or not. As a people (whatever country we are in) it is our responsibility to hold them accountable because they will not hold themselves accountable. The whole system is completely broken.

I have but one concrete political belief / theory: Vote ‘em Out! Whenever I have to opportunity to vote I vote for whoever is running against the incumbent. The goal would be to ultimately create an ideological equilibrium instead of a mass polarization (as is currently happening in the US and abroad).

[psychlops]

I wish this were more effective. Sadly, even between our false choices of poor candidates, we are frequently gerrymandered into futile voting.

[coding123]

There are usually people that know about the abuse. You have to hope for whistleblowers at that point.

[FillardMillmore]

If a company is behaving unethically (but not necessarily illegally), whistleblowers can help in informing the public as to the abuse. It is especially needed in times of crisis (like this one), but because it's a time of crisis, I would assume the motivations of whistleblowers may be less strong if they don't feel entirely financially secure.

[coding123]

Which is a shame since our country continues to shame and discredit real whistleblowers, instead of giving them job loss immunity (or at least some form of protection that is equal or higher than the monetary loss that could befall them for speaking up).

[mistermann]

This seems far too error prone for my liking, particularly considering the sub-optimal way in which we handle whistleblowers.

If we have such little control over our financial system that we have to literally rely on hope, wouldn't it make sense to maybe pull back the covers on this monstrosity and starting figuring out what's inside?

And if public policy makers once again deem the system "battle ready" and come asking for a handout again in 10 years, what then? If someone ran their family like this, we'd call them a bit of a dummy, wouldn't we? So why is this acceptable for the financial system upon which our society (aka: our individual lives) rests?

If we hadn't grown so accustomed to this madness, I think a lot of people would be more agitated by it, but it's been with us for so long we seem to just accept it.