Elerond

Here is English wikipedia article about SOK https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_Group Here is wikipedia article about its corporate type https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative For those who are interested

ehmm, how that company earn money if all customers of that company are share holders at the same time? By customers paying their services like any other company and then they return some of the money back to customers and then use some of the money to expand their operations. it doesn't make any sense, do these 'customers' have unlimited amount of money or is it like 'buy this for 10, we will give you 1 back and you can consider yourself a holder of 0,000001% of our company'? Usually it is case you get certain percent back that you have used to buy company's services. It is something between 0,00005%-0,0001% ownership as there is only 5 million people in Finland, so even our biggest companies usually have only 1-2 million of them as their customers.

I have to say that example in Finland about companies sounds odd. I must be misunderstanding you, in your example you not saying these shareholders make company decisions ? The decision making process and daily running of every single company I have seen and worked in is the same, shareholders have no say in daily operations Also, and this is probably over complicating the question, but what type of securities do these companies offer.... bonds, common stocks or preferred stocks? Shareholders select board of the company in periodical meetings, board selects CEO for company, then CEO together with board runs the company.

ehmm, how that company earn money if all customers of that company are share holders at the same time? By customers paying their services like any other company and then they return some of the money back to customers and then use some of the money to expand their operations.

Now that would be an example. Any names so we could google them? SOK (Suomen Osuuskauppa), Lähitapiola (now become part of SOK), TPO (Tampereen Puhelin Osuuskunta, now become part of Elisa), VVO

There are many type of corporations. Some corporations just seek funding by selling their shares to people and rewards people by giving them part of their profit. This kind of corporations can't be said to be collectively owned. Apple is one example of this kind of corporation. But that is not only way to go. There is also corporations where all share holders are seen as equals and all their customers become share holders. This kind corporations are very collectively owned and they work very similarly as public administration. In Finland we have quite lot of such companies that have been founded by worker unions and other left wing communistic organisations. Like for example one of our biggest department store chains is such, one of the largest insurance companies is such. In past we had lots of phone companies that were such and so on.

For example share ownership.

They aren't actually in politics to make America safer or any place else, they are just showing that they are in power now and what are the values they are trying to sell you.

They say that Times and National Geographic aren't write about same story, but I am not entirely convinced of that isn't the case

When you see everything as Hitler no one will care when one such as him finally takes power. When it comes to Der Spiegel I would not say that is fair statement. But question is from what you known that somebody like Hitler has taken the power? If you look how he rose to power you will have hard time to differentiate him from lot of politicians. He campaigned with German first platform, protectionism, national security, jobs for Germans, resign from "unfair" international agreements, stopping terrorizing minorities, stopping minorities stealing German jobs, Christian and family values, and so on. Lots of people have campaigned on similar promises as you stated without being Hitler, but suddenly Trump is. Oh well, at least this paper dropped any pretense on what they want: How do you know that they weren't Hitler? What if they just failed to grab enough power? Or they are still in process to executing their plans? But seriously how many people have won election with similar manifest to Hitler's and how many of them have gained actual control over the country? Can you give some examples of such? And what comes to Trump, it is how he acts that makes people not like him and narrative where only his vision can safe USA and actions that he has taken after being elected. Also his seeming disregards towards other branches of power also don't help when people claim that he is authoritarian. Also that his staff constantly gives out statements that have alternative facts in them don't help in building trust towards him. Also making his first executive orders to go against idea what people think America is also don't do any favors to him. Disrespecting foreign leaders especially those that are your closest allies also don't give good picture. And so on. I can't say that he is actually Hitler as he has not yet at least started to throw people in furnaces, but even for Hitler that take some time to get going on. But currently I would say that policy wise and how he goes with their execution Trump is worst leader in any western country during my life time. But if your people are happy how with how he does things then good for you. But for me Trump seems to be currently worst enemy that western hegemony has seen for decades, but that is not saying that I don't see some good opportunities rising from his presidency, especially in Europe, where politics are closer to my hearth than they are in USA. Like how I find it funny how our anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-EU, anti-Euro, pro Finland, pro protectionist etc. populists party that is currently in our government finds Trump actions troubling and anti-Western, although they are more than willing to look past that as long as USA does trade with Finland, but Trumps and GOP's speaks for extra boarder taxes for countries like Finland don't help their worries.

Who are real fascists these days? That was the question that I asked how you known that they are in power.

These times people just harass people in internet and go in every news story to say fake news look this other article that tells how bad opposite politicians are. EDIT: Also I would note riots etc. weren't uncommon in that era Germany, because they economy was is very bad place after WWI

They started first as outside group that supported what Hitler seem to sell (you can point of several similar kind groups that support current populistic political movements/parties/candidates) who actively distributed false information about people currently in power, evolving constantly more radical tactics. But it wasn't until after Hitler was in power that he made it as his group, by eliminating people from its power that had their own ambitions for power that didn't align with Hitler's vision. So when you know when radical group that harasses political opposition and spreads false claims about them is "Brownshirts" and not normal political activist group? Like you could say that Bernie Bros or Trump supporters, or Black Lives Matter protesters used similar tactics during election than "Brownshirts" used in beginning.

When you see everything as Hitler no one will care when one such as him finally takes power. When it comes to Der Spiegel I would not say that is fair statement. But question is from what you known that somebody like Hitler has taken the power? If you look how he rose to power you will have hard time to differentiate him from lot of politicians. He campaigned with German first platform, protectionism, national security, jobs for Germans, resign from "unfair" international agreements, stopping terrorizing minorities, stopping minorities stealing German jobs, Christian and family values, and so on. Well, except for the whole Mein Kampf thing, being in prison for an attempted coup, and brown-shirted nazi thugs running riot in the streets. People didn't seem to think that Mein Kampf was bad when it was published, it praises those same things that Hitler used in his political manifesto. Hitler's going in prison was seen as oppression of political opposition that has courage to speak truth. Brown-shirts come after nazis were already in political power to ensure that they will stay in political power, meaning that in that point of time was well pass the moment when somebody like Hitler had taken the power.

Their rhetoric seems to come from this kind views, meaning views that saw Muslims as people who like behead people, so they put Trump beheading The Liberty, in order to put America first. Meaning that it isn't ironic coincidence but purposefully chosen rhetoric in order to use people's preconceptions to drive their message home (not saying that it works necessary well, but that seems to be intention behind their cover picture).

When you see everything as Hitler no one will care when one such as him finally takes power. When it comes to Der Spiegel I would not say that is fair statement. But question is from what you known that somebody like Hitler has taken the power? If you look how he rose to power you will have hard time to differentiate him from lot of politicians. He campaigned with German first platform, protectionism, national security, jobs for Germans, resign from "unfair" international agreements, stopping terrorizing minorities, stopping minorities stealing German jobs, Christian and family values, and so on.

If I don't like game after couple hours I stop playing if I don't have before hand knowledge that it gets better after sometime. But these days I take quite little risk with games that I buy, as I seem to have quite little time to play games these days. Like I didn't even log 1000 hours last years all games combined.

Daily Mail has been leading example of how to write non-factual news since of its inception. Also when it comes to NY Times best selling list, I would say that I don't value lists which are base on secret methods, instead of open data, very high.

Some could think that Der Spiegel's editorial board don't like Trump much.

They consider themselves as Western Europeans, sadly the rest of the Western EU does not agree. I would say that their problem is in fact that lots of people mix them with Slovakia and don't actually know what kind country Slovenia is. But from my only visit there I would say that it is quite western European, but my view is based mostly only one city. Where I went shopping as I lived in near by resort that was in border of Hungary and Slovenia.

Arnold Schwarzenegger proposes that he and Trump switch jobs https://twitter.com/Schwarzenegger/status/827169996866347008

For Reuters? Have you even read Bush era articles in Reuters. If you think those are calling somebody Hitler like then Fox news about Obama must have been really constant calling him as incarnation of Satan and bringer of apocalypse or even something worse in comparison. Because they were quite pro with his policies like war in Iraq etc..

It seems that Reuters' editorial staff now counts US government as hostile, pro-censoring and anti press. Which is quite achievement in 12 days, when you take account that before Reuters was very supportive of most things done by US government. I guess all those references about Obama's lap dog press just went straight over your head. Before they were Obama's lap dogs they were Bush's lap dogs, and before that they were Clinton's lap dogs. This is first time that I have seen them to take negative stance towards current US government. This is just speaking about Reuters.

It seems that Reuters' editorial staff now counts US government as hostile, pro-censoring and anti press. Which is quite achievement in 12 days, when you take account that before Reuters was very supportive of most things done by US government.