And to be honest, the only CEO that would really drive down shares is likely Steve Jobs, who is expressly in command of Apple and is vital to it's success, the rest just do what is needed to ensure their social status in life and nothing more.

Actually, the only really important decision Jobs ever made was to kill the cloning effort.  If you look at the growth rate of MacOS, it was the same before and after Jobs came back as CEO.  Jobs just did your evil "financial speculator" CEO thing and made sure he got all of the pie, instead of sharing it.  He makes out like a bandit personally, too, because his pay is all in stock options.

An example of a CEO who is seriously worth his pay is Alan Mulally, who managed to pull Ford through the downturn while GM and Chrysler both went bankrupt.

Lord Mutt - you are denying human nature and spirit, and using circular argument.

Humans are socially co-operative and territorial but operate within a heirarchical system (a pecking order). We are psychologically programmed to protect the youngest, sociologically programmed to protect the family, the clan and our territory and anthropologically programmed to protect our species from others and to determine rank within our clan and species based on strength, intellect, age and talent and we continue to evolve in this latter respect based on survival needs - our species survival has depended on adaptability, talent and intelligence over strength.

The example I gave you in China existed despite the fact that these people already had co-operative farms. Individual cottage gardens produced more, and people did this in their own time after work, because their own family would benefit. There is a reason why most communist regimes are repressive and it is because individuals and family groups have a very great need to delineate themselves through property and other symbols, and people have a strong need to define their rank within a social order.

The socialist/communist view has failed worldwide because it denies human nature, despite claims that paleolithic people lived in communist societies. You will find that even in social groups (like the indigenous Australians ) where individual ownership is unknown, this does not extend to other clans/tribes/groups. It seems to work when a group is under attack - socially mature Britons during World War 2 for instance, but depends on hierarchical leadership just the same. You will find, therefore, that even in primitive groups, a leadership/knowledge base hierarchy exists and that rank carries privileges, as it does throughout nature. Tribal groups have leaders, and/or spiritual leaders and/or elders.

Historically, I know the communism has been proposed throughout the ages but each individual or group that proposed this system included an elite group (such as the church) or conversely an outsider group (such as slaves). Capitalism has worked (as an economic system) because it plays to human nature and this means instinctive, programmed evolutionary behaviours.

Feeding the hungry.

Ah, I see. A worthy, yet ultimately unattainable goal. It has nothing to do with what sort of economic strategy a country employs, and everything to do with how food is cultivated. The best way I can think of to be able to get people off of grain staple foods would be to implement hydroponic agriculture on a massive scale. The kind where there are tiers of crops grown in order to maximize land space usage. Plus, it leaves more room for the meat (ie livestock) to walk around lol.

I didn't read most of the thread so excuse my not commenting on the rest of the conversation, I just want to say something about the original topic.

When you're going against what the mainstream nutritional authorities recommend, you know you're doing something right.

Yeah.  I think some vegan automated a program to stuff the ballot box.  You just have to dump the browser cookie.

I'm powered by steak and eggs.

There's a bumper sticker if I ever saw one..."Powered by STEAK & EGGS".