4 ms·

"If a company can make money by deceiving or manipulating people, someone is going to create such a company, and it will prosper (unless the law regulates it).

by doorty 11y ago

"If a company can make money by deceiving or manipulating people, someone is going to create such a company, and it will prosper (unless the law regulates it). And if it prospers, companies that do not deceive or manipulate people may well be at a competitive disadvantage." EDIT: I was just quoting the article for discussion purposes. There's no reason to down vote.

javert 11y ago
The only companies that I sometimes continue to engage with after they deceive and manipulate me are governmnent-granted monopolies, like Time Warner Cable.
- doorty 11y ago
  This assumes you know that they are deceiving you. If the company is successfully deceiving you, then you will not know it.
  - javert 11y ago
    This is some really distorted thinking in an attempt to salvage the false notion that we are all helpless without the government protecting us from "evil" companies. 99% of companies I interact with have no way to deceive me in any significant way, and the few that do (e.g. maybe a bank, insurance, or other financial companies) I double check on and I take action to mitigate the risks. Moreover, companies who commit fraud eventually get caught and their people go to jail. That is all part of a free market system, not a command-style, over-regulated Marxist one, which just hurts people in the long run. People who advocate that kind of system are serious evil.
    - MaysonL 11y ago
      Moreover, companies who commit fraud eventually get caught and their people go to jail. Which is why all the bank executives are currently in jail? (Contrast DOJ enforcement after the latest financial blowup to their conduct after the S&L crisis). See Bernanke's take: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/04/ben-bernanke-execs-jail-great-recession-federal-reserve/72959402/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/04/ben-b...
      - javert 11y ago
        That is out of context for this discussion. Banks have regulatory capture. Plus, I'm not aware of bank execs committing fraud. Plus, I'm not saying that the tort system works perfectly, I'm staying that is what we should fix, rather than having a command-and-control regulatory [capture] system like progressives/Marxists want.
jevgeni 11y ago
And if a law does regulate it, the bureaucrat enforcing said law will prosper.
- doorty 11y ago
  How will he "prosper"? You mean he will have a "job" because he's preventing deception.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    He may be well-compensated for not enforcing the law in some cases.
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Upvoted. It's a great quote, stating the obvious truth that somehow still eludes great many people. The market rewards things that are effective, discriminating against any value that hurts the profit. If honesty is effective, it will be rewarded. If it hinders profitability, it will be discriminated against. Thus in time the optimal amount of honesty will be found. Given the obvious information asymmetry between the seller and the buyer we shall not expect that amount to be high.
- javert 11y ago
  But dishonesty does hinder profitability. You can't get away with much of it for very long before customers leave, and you get a bad reputation. > Given the obvious information asymmetry between the seller and the buyer we shall not expect that amount to be high. There really isn't that much. You can't concretize this (i.e. give real examples) because it's easy for customers to do some research. There is a lot of "theorizing" going on here that is no good because it is not empirical enough.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    > But dishonesty does hinder profitability. You can't get away with much of it for very long before customers leave, and you get a bad reputation. Does it now? I could point you (in private) to at least two companies (big on my country's market in their particular segments) I know personally cheat and steal, including lying on the phone to people who have managed to figure out the deception and called in to complain. One of those companies has figured out a strategy to stay on top of user complains so that they're free to do whatever they want. The other one has their office in a low-population region and is the one of the few available employers for the locals - this allows the CEO to both abuse the employees and to avoid scrutiny by keeping the local work inspector bribed. On top of that, it's an open secret that food stores do shit like cleaning stale meat with dish liquid and then selling it to people as fresh. There are many, many ways in which Joes and Janes Random Entrepreneurs abuse customers; it's pretty much common practice. As long they don't to it in a blatantly illegal way, they're fine. > it's easy for customers to do some research. No, it's not. Also, research is what you do when you buy a car; no one has the time to check out the place where they do groceries, and even if they did, everyone else cheats as much, so it's not that you have an alternative. Customers voting with their wallets is bullshit in most industries and companies know it. People are quick to get outraged but slow to change their habits.
javert 11y ago
> EDIT: I was just quoting the article for discussion purposes. There's no reason to down vote. Copying and pasting a quote without providing any further context is implicitly endorsing it. People are downvoting you because they don't agree with the quote.

by doorty 11y ago

javert 11y ago

The only companies that I sometimes continue to engage with after they deceive and manipulate me are governmnent-granted monopolies, like Time Warner Cable.

doorty 11y ago
This assumes you know that they are deceiving you. If the company is successfully deceiving you, then you will not know it.
- javert 11y ago
  This is some really distorted thinking in an attempt to salvage the false notion that we are all helpless without the government protecting us from "evil" companies. 99% of companies I interact with have no way to deceive me in any significant way, and the few that do (e.g. maybe a bank, insurance, or other financial companies) I double check on and I take action to mitigate the risks. Moreover, companies who commit fraud eventually get caught and their people go to jail. That is all part of a free market system, not a command-style, over-regulated Marxist one, which just hurts people in the long run. People who advocate that kind of system are serious evil.
  - MaysonL 11y ago
    Moreover, companies who commit fraud eventually get caught and their people go to jail. Which is why all the bank executives are currently in jail? (Contrast DOJ enforcement after the latest financial blowup to their conduct after the S&L crisis). See Bernanke's take: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/04/ben-bernanke-execs-jail-great-recession-federal-reserve/72959402/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/10/04/ben-b...
    - javert 11y ago
      That is out of context for this discussion. Banks have regulatory capture. Plus, I'm not aware of bank execs committing fraud. Plus, I'm not saying that the tort system works perfectly, I'm staying that is what we should fix, rather than having a command-and-control regulatory [capture] system like progressives/Marxists want.

jevgeni 11y ago

And if a law does regulate it, the bureaucrat enforcing said law will prosper.

doorty 11y ago
How will he "prosper"? You mean he will have a "job" because he's preventing deception.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  He may be well-compensated for not enforcing the law in some cases.

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Upvoted. It's a great quote, stating the obvious truth that somehow still eludes great many people. The market rewards things that are effective, discriminating against any value that hurts the profit. If honesty is effective, it will be rewarded. If it hinders profitability, it will be discriminated against. Thus in time the optimal amount of honesty will be found. Given the obvious information asymmetry between the seller and the buyer we shall not expect that amount to be high.

javert 11y ago
But dishonesty does hinder profitability. You can't get away with much of it for very long before customers leave, and you get a bad reputation. > Given the obvious information asymmetry between the seller and the buyer we shall not expect that amount to be high. There really isn't that much. You can't concretize this (i.e. give real examples) because it's easy for customers to do some research. There is a lot of "theorizing" going on here that is no good because it is not empirical enough.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  > But dishonesty does hinder profitability. You can't get away with much of it for very long before customers leave, and you get a bad reputation. Does it now? I could point you (in private) to at least two companies (big on my country's market in their particular segments) I know personally cheat and steal, including lying on the phone to people who have managed to figure out the deception and called in to complain. One of those companies has figured out a strategy to stay on top of user complains so that they're free to do whatever they want. The other one has their office in a low-population region and is the one of the few available employers for the locals - this allows the CEO to both abuse the employees and to avoid scrutiny by keeping the local work inspector bribed. On top of that, it's an open secret that food stores do shit like cleaning stale meat with dish liquid and then selling it to people as fresh. There are many, many ways in which Joes and Janes Random Entrepreneurs abuse customers; it's pretty much common practice. As long they don't to it in a blatantly illegal way, they're fine. > it's easy for customers to do some research. No, it's not. Also, research is what you do when you buy a car; no one has the time to check out the place where they do groceries, and even if they did, everyone else cheats as much, so it's not that you have an alternative. Customers voting with their wallets is bullshit in most industries and companies know it. People are quick to get outraged but slow to change their habits.

javert 11y ago

> EDIT: I was just quoting the article for discussion purposes. There's no reason to down vote. Copying and pasting a quote without providing any further context is implicitly endorsing it. People are downvoting you because they don't agree with the quote.