3 ms·
But it's not. If the company can succeed with the inefficiency, then it's not that big an inefficiency. It's a much more difficult argument to say that it is
by ihodes 16y ago
But it's not.
If the company can succeed with the inefficiency, then it's not that big an inefficiency.
It's a much more difficult argument to say that it is the public's concern to eliminate every inefficiency. God, imagine the employment opportunities for fixing poorly designed enterprise software... But no one is arguing that we do that. It is so easy to agree to not let an individual get rich from an inefficiency.
This is not to say I don't agree that it's a terrible, idiotic practice. But it's not my decision to step in.
- sprout 16y agoThe point is you're already stepping in. There are tons of laws just like this one on the books, and the whole concept of a corporation falls apart without these laws. Throwing up your arms and saying "it's not my decision to step in" is silly. The public is already stepping in through hundreds of regulators, and it seems pretty self-evident that these regulators need a better framework. (Or we could get rid of them, but we can't really do that without getting rid of the corporations, and even then we're looking at something that probably is not really as good an idea as it might sound.)