4 ms·

This has nothing to do with Amazon. This is a predictable outcome of a particular type of game system. Its like blaming the winner in a game of monopoly for bei

This has nothing to do with Amazon. This is a predictable outcome of a particular type of game system. Its like blaming the winner in a game of monopoly for being too greedy.

noir_lord 9y ago
I've heard this put as "don't hate the player, hate the game". I find that unambitious, if the 'game' allows you to do scuzzy things and you choose to do them then you are scuzzy. Amazon by it's sheer size like other large corporations gets away with (figurative in amazon's case at least) murder. Disclaimer: I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-this-type-of-capitalism.
- petermcneeley 9y ago
  But each actor is merely doing the actions to their maximum satisfaction within the ruleset. "scuzzy" is not factored into the equation at all.
  - noir_lord 9y ago
    Indeed and I'm not disagreeing but my point is that it should be. Companies don't exist in isolation, they benefit hugely by been able to operate in stable societies with defined legal systems, educated populations who are capable of buying their products, it seems fair that in return they should pay their taxes and operate in a way that society broadly considers acceptable. The problem (imo) is that we have a two tier rule system where if you get big enough fast enough you are essentially untouchable in any real sense. * Bank Bailout * HSBC laundering money for Cartels/Terroists * VW (and others) cheating emissions, lying to customers etc. The list goes on and on and they all (in real terms) get away with it because they are too big to punish. If a SME behaved that way they'd go out of business.
  - Lionsion 9y ago
    > But each actor is merely doing the actions to their maximum satisfaction within the ruleset. "scuzzy" is not factored into the equation at all. An ethical human being or organization is supposed to factor it in themselves, whether it's listed in the "ruleset" or not. This is not a board game, real people's lives are affected.
staticautomatic 9y ago
Good god I wish I could down-vote this so many times. It's shameful attitude.
- petermcneeley 9y ago
  Here is some more explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNRtrZjkfE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNRtrZjkfE
- jrw2 9y ago
  Why is it shameful? It sounded moral to me.

This has nothing to do with Amazon. This is a predictable outcome of a particular type of game system. Its like blaming the winner in a game of monopoly for being too greedy.

noir_lord 9y ago

I've heard this put as "don't hate the player, hate the game". I find that unambitious, if the 'game' allows you to do scuzzy things and you choose to do them then you are scuzzy. Amazon by it's sheer size like other large corporations gets away with (figurative in amazon's case at least) murder. Disclaimer: I'm not anti-capitalist, I'm anti-this-type-of-capitalism.

petermcneeley 9y ago
But each actor is merely doing the actions to their maximum satisfaction within the ruleset. "scuzzy" is not factored into the equation at all.
- noir_lord 9y ago
  Indeed and I'm not disagreeing but my point is that it should be. Companies don't exist in isolation, they benefit hugely by been able to operate in stable societies with defined legal systems, educated populations who are capable of buying their products, it seems fair that in return they should pay their taxes and operate in a way that society broadly considers acceptable. The problem (imo) is that we have a two tier rule system where if you get big enough fast enough you are essentially untouchable in any real sense. * Bank Bailout * HSBC laundering money for Cartels/Terroists * VW (and others) cheating emissions, lying to customers etc. The list goes on and on and they all (in real terms) get away with it because they are too big to punish. If a SME behaved that way they'd go out of business.
- Lionsion 9y ago
  > But each actor is merely doing the actions to their maximum satisfaction within the ruleset. "scuzzy" is not factored into the equation at all. An ethical human being or organization is supposed to factor it in themselves, whether it's listed in the "ruleset" or not. This is not a board game, real people's lives are affected.

staticautomatic 9y ago

Good god I wish I could down-vote this so many times. It's shameful attitude.

petermcneeley 9y ago
Here is some more explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNRtrZjkfE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjNRtrZjkfE
jrw2 9y ago
Why is it shameful? It sounded moral to me.