3 ms·

> Just like votes, more money = more protection. That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your wallet" argument when a company scre

> Just like votes, more money = more protection. That's what I find strange with the often-seen "well, just vote with your wallet" argument when a company screws up; it's almost literally the definition of an oligarchy (IE, more money = more decision power).

kefka 9y ago
It's the similar power arrangement when an employee has legitimate grievances with their employer. Individually, they are a speck. Nothing. They can be gotten rid of like the chattel they are. However, when Unions show up, they are the equal and opposing force that keeps a company in check with regards to their employees. Some have issues with Unions, as some of them are significantly corrupt. But by and large, unions are the equal and opposite force. What protects small companies from large companies? In reality, nothing. That's what allows fake-patent shakedowns like the "SSL Patent", or others. And that's by exploiting protections in law... But what happens when one side has *10000 the resources? You capitulate and go bankrupt due to legal fees, legal harassment, and a continual defense against a legal monied attack. In the end, there's fuck-all you can do. Well, other than whatever the monied plantiff wants.
baddox 9y ago
To be fair, that phrase usually applies to everyday consumer purchases, not a firm using large amounts of money to apply legal pressure to another firm. The normal usage of the phrase is fairly reasonable.
efdee 9y ago
"Vote with your wallet" means hit them where it hurts, because you don't have much of an actual vote in a company's behavior. It has nothing to do with using money to subvert the democratic process.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.
  - jandrese 9y ago
    Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.
    - kefka 9y ago
      > Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals. Yeah, free market. Like "I have more money, and I dont like your face, so I nuisance sue you until you're bankrupt." free market? That's not a world I want to be part of, continue, or assist in any way.
    - leggomylibro 9y ago
      It's pretty clear that unregulated capitalism does not work; that's why we have regulations. What kind of world would it be if we didn't even have rules about things like how much lead is acceptable for a person to consume, or what constitutes 'acutely toxic,' or what you are and aren't allowed to put in food? "Well," the free market idealist replies, "it would be fine. Nobody would consume things with a lot of lead over a competitor without lead. Nobody would use unlabeled toxic things after the first few incidents. Nobody would eat or drink poison over a nutritious competitor." And that malicious failure to acknowledge that people are not omniscient or in possession of perfect information about The Market on a second-to-second basis is what leads to us accepting those sorts of stupid arguments.

kefka 9y ago

It's the similar power arrangement when an employee has legitimate grievances with their employer. Individually, they are a speck. Nothing. They can be gotten rid of like the chattel they are. However, when Unions show up, they are the equal and opposing force that keeps a company in check with regards to their employees. Some have issues with Unions, as some of them are significantly corrupt. But by and large, unions are the equal and opposite force. What protects small companies from large companies? In reality, nothing. That's what allows fake-patent shakedowns like the "SSL Patent", or others. And that's by exploiting protections in law... But what happens when one side has *10000 the resources? You capitulate and go bankrupt due to legal fees, legal harassment, and a continual defense against a legal monied attack. In the end, there's fuck-all you can do. Well, other than whatever the monied plantiff wants.

baddox 9y ago

To be fair, that phrase usually applies to everyday consumer purchases, not a firm using large amounts of money to apply legal pressure to another firm. The normal usage of the phrase is fairly reasonable.

efdee 9y ago

"Vote with your wallet" means hit them where it hurts, because you don't have much of an actual vote in a company's behavior. It has nothing to do with using money to subvert the democratic process.

leggomylibro 9y ago
It normalizes the behavior as acceptable. In reality, the aphorism is based on a ridiculous premise that nobody in their right mind should accept; that money is the only thing responsible for dictating what is acceptable behavior.
- jandrese 9y ago
  Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals.
  - kefka 9y ago
    > Uh, that's the entire premise behind the free market. Money decides who is right and who is wrong. The Invisible Hand doesn't have morals. Yeah, free market. Like "I have more money, and I dont like your face, so I nuisance sue you until you're bankrupt." free market? That's not a world I want to be part of, continue, or assist in any way.
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    It's pretty clear that unregulated capitalism does not work; that's why we have regulations. What kind of world would it be if we didn't even have rules about things like how much lead is acceptable for a person to consume, or what constitutes 'acutely toxic,' or what you are and aren't allowed to put in food? "Well," the free market idealist replies, "it would be fine. Nobody would consume things with a lot of lead over a competitor without lead. Nobody would use unlabeled toxic things after the first few incidents. Nobody would eat or drink poison over a nutritious competitor." And that malicious failure to acknowledge that people are not omniscient or in possession of perfect information about The Market on a second-to-second basis is what leads to us accepting those sorts of stupid arguments.