3 ms·
I have to question the morality of a corporate ethos like this. It sounds like the flip-side of "in the interest of shareholder value", which can result in coll
by dforrestwilson 9y ago
I have to question the morality of a corporate ethos like this. It sounds like the flip-side of "in the interest of shareholder value", which can result in collateral damage to the environment, communities, politics, etc.
Amazon has arm-twisted competitors like Zappos into sub-optimal acquisitions by selling goods at a loss, and it's a fair question to ask if less or no competition really benefits consumers in the long-run.
I'm starting to wonder if all large successful corporations are just a type of legal sociopath, driven to crazy extremes via corporate zealotry.
- ChristianBundy 9y ago> I'm starting to wonder if all large successful corporations are just a type of legal sociopath, driven to crazy extremes via corporate zealotry. Yes, in the same way that feudal lords and slave-owners are legal sociopaths. Capitalism is inherently exploitative.
- devmunchies 9y agoCapitalism is a pretty organic and free system. I think its just people who are exploitative. It the economy were even more free, it would be even worse.
- cgmg 9y agoGiven that freer markets are associated with massive reductions in poverty and increased standards of living around the world, what makes you think a freer economy would be "even worse"?
- devmunchies 9y agoEven worse as in "more exploitative". I was arguing that people, not the economic structure, are exploitative. So an economy where people are more free, there will be more exploitation (which isn't a fault of capitalism but of people). I'm very pro-free-market.