3 ms·

The problem with 'conscientious capitalism' is that a competitor will take the idea and run with it, save for the 'conscientious' elements, and push out the ori

by Fej 9y ago

The problem with 'conscientious capitalism' is that a competitor will take the idea and run with it, save for the 'conscientious' elements, and push out the original from the market.

Chaebixi 9y ago
> The problem with 'conscientious capitalism' is that a competitor will take the idea and run with it, save for the 'conscientious' elements, and push out the original from the market. That's not a problem with 'conscientious capitalism' itself, it's a problem with the monomania of the market and the loss of compensatory factors that could hold that monomania in check.
lallysingh 9y ago
I don't know about this. I think it's been over-done to such a degree that actually good customer service is a rare gem to find at this point, and is a better discriminator than price in most products. The price difference is rarely worth the hassle or tension of dealing with bureaucracy or unpleasant people. Or bad websites.. I really can't stand vendors who can't build an easily navigatable, fast website. I've stuck with my cell vendor because of the customer service, even when the price / coverage wasn't as good as I perceived others would be. I've also left my cable company for a poorer competitor because of the difference in customer service. I've got thousands of miles on United that I never intend to use now.
- Applejinx 9y ago
  The trouble there is under certain circumstances, good will is a commodity. It can be accumulated through a pattern of behavior, and then spent (converted to capital) to turn a short-term profit. So there's a legit strategy that makes sense to a Wall Street firm, where you specifically go after stuff with good will so you can convert that to capital and then flush what's left. It's not dissimilar to how real estate is a form of storing capital, best used without actual people living in the real estate to mess it up: the wipe-and-flush strategy is about intentionally converting these 'rare gems' into raw capital through using the goodwill up. As long as that is more profitable than not doing it, good customer service (or 'enlightened' capitalistic activity) is something you can't have, or can only have until it's seized and squeezed. Market forces make the wipe-and-flush phase inevitable: the longer you hold out, the bigger a prize that goodwill is, provided the thing is publically held and subject to this dynamic.
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    I don't know about that. A good part of Amazon's initial advantage was in their goodwill. Their reviews were (for a long time) pretty fair and would mark bad products as bad. Their customer service was always quite attentive. I think in growth industries, the potential future of goodwill outweighs the value of expending that goodwill right now. Unless you've already lost the market -- but I don't think that'll be to prices as much as competitors offering more/better products.
im3w1l 9y ago
Totally, 100% agree. That's the status quo. Would it be possible to modify society to prevent such a competitor?

by Fej 9y ago

The problem with 'conscientious capitalism' is that a competitor will take the idea and run with it, save for the 'conscientious' elements, and push out the original from the market.

Chaebixi 9y ago

> The problem with 'conscientious capitalism' is that a competitor will take the idea and run with it, save for the 'conscientious' elements, and push out the original from the market. That's not a problem with 'conscientious capitalism' itself, it's a problem with the monomania of the market and the loss of compensatory factors that could hold that monomania in check.

lallysingh 9y ago

I don't know about this. I think it's been over-done to such a degree that actually good customer service is a rare gem to find at this point, and is a better discriminator than price in most products. The price difference is rarely worth the hassle or tension of dealing with bureaucracy or unpleasant people. Or bad websites.. I really can't stand vendors who can't build an easily navigatable, fast website. I've stuck with my cell vendor because of the customer service, even when the price / coverage wasn't as good as I perceived others would be. I've also left my cable company for a poorer competitor because of the difference in customer service. I've got thousands of miles on United that I never intend to use now.

Applejinx 9y ago
The trouble there is under certain circumstances, good will is a commodity. It can be accumulated through a pattern of behavior, and then spent (converted to capital) to turn a short-term profit. So there's a legit strategy that makes sense to a Wall Street firm, where you specifically go after stuff with good will so you can convert that to capital and then flush what's left. It's not dissimilar to how real estate is a form of storing capital, best used without actual people living in the real estate to mess it up: the wipe-and-flush strategy is about intentionally converting these 'rare gems' into raw capital through using the goodwill up. As long as that is more profitable than not doing it, good customer service (or 'enlightened' capitalistic activity) is something you can't have, or can only have until it's seized and squeezed. Market forces make the wipe-and-flush phase inevitable: the longer you hold out, the bigger a prize that goodwill is, provided the thing is publically held and subject to this dynamic.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  I don't know about that. A good part of Amazon's initial advantage was in their goodwill. Their reviews were (for a long time) pretty fair and would mark bad products as bad. Their customer service was always quite attentive. I think in growth industries, the potential future of goodwill outweighs the value of expending that goodwill right now. Unless you've already lost the market -- but I don't think that'll be to prices as much as competitors offering more/better products.

im3w1l 9y ago

Totally, 100% agree. That's the status quo. Would it be possible to modify society to prevent such a competitor?