4 ms·

The issue is that companies carrying the disease often grow and "prosper" while companies which do not get left in the dust. Thus the trend goes towards every c

The issue is that companies carrying the disease often grow and "prosper" while companies which do not get left in the dust. Thus the trend goes towards every company becoming diseased. The only way to solve this is regulation. If you don't impose non-negotiable standards on everybody, the ones most willing to bend laws and morals succeed.

mindcrime 8y ago
The issue is that companies carrying the disease often grow and "prosper" while companies which do not get left in the dust. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff. In fact, I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale. And this is where we, as a community of hackers, need to put energy into doing the "stuff" that makes that sort of behavior self-defeating. We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise. If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs. So the question becomes - how can we use tech to make reduce those same transaction costs, allowing smaller firms (down to the level of the individual, ideally) to proper just as well, without needing to build some byzantine, bureaucratic, behemoth? The only way to solve this is regulation. Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first. Regulation leads to regulatory capture, franchise agreements, taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones, ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows, all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm
- aylmao 8y ago
  Very insightful comment. Some thoughts: > I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff I don't think it's because of this always, but it's certainly an advantage for companies that do. > I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale How long though, and how many people will have suffered by then? I mean, polluting the environment is self-defeating over a sufficiently long term, but we don't want to let this self-regulation happen because it will come with extinction. We should strive for things being fixed sooner rather than later. > We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise. I agree 100%. > If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs. Oh, thanks for the link. I don't know enough about this to comment. > Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first. Regulation refers to a setting rules. It's dangerous because the state is powerful, but it can also exist devoid of private interests for this reason. Like the FDA ensuring food is safe, or urban planning ensuring all buildings get water, electricity and other basic services. > Regulation leads to regulatory capture, Like running leads to injuries; I mean, if done wrong things will fail. > franchise agreements, These sound like regulatory capture. > taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones, Is this necessarily wrong? Subsidized fire departments and public libraries certainly out-perform unsubsidized ones. On certain industries subsidies might not make sense, but if it's an industry where a business model is hard to maintain (like a fire department) then why oppose it? Part of the reason regulation exists is to avoid market failure; sometimes private actors don't suffice. > ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows This sounds like government doing business poorly, not like government setting rules for better management and avoiding market failure. > all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc. Well, if you have a corrupt government then yeah. There's instances of regulation done well too, though.

mindcrime 8y ago

The issue is that companies carrying the disease often grow and "prosper" while companies which do not get left in the dust. I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff. In fact, I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale. And this is where we, as a community of hackers, need to put energy into doing the "stuff" that makes that sort of behavior self-defeating. We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise. If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs. So the question becomes - how can we use tech to make reduce those same transaction costs, allowing smaller firms (down to the level of the individual, ideally) to proper just as well, without needing to build some byzantine, bureaucratic, behemoth? The only way to solve this is regulation. Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first. Regulation leads to regulatory capture, franchise agreements, taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones, ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows, all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_the_firm

aylmao 8y ago
Very insightful comment. Some thoughts: > I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff I don't think it's because of this always, but it's certainly an advantage for companies that do. > I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale How long though, and how many people will have suffered by then? I mean, polluting the environment is self-defeating over a sufficiently long term, but we don't want to let this self-regulation happen because it will come with extinction. We should strive for things being fixed sooner rather than later. > We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise. I agree 100%. > If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs. Oh, thanks for the link. I don't know enough about this to comment. > Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first. Regulation refers to a setting rules. It's dangerous because the state is powerful, but it can also exist devoid of private interests for this reason. Like the FDA ensuring food is safe, or urban planning ensuring all buildings get water, electricity and other basic services. > Regulation leads to regulatory capture, Like running leads to injuries; I mean, if done wrong things will fail. > franchise agreements, These sound like regulatory capture. > taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones, Is this necessarily wrong? Subsidized fire departments and public libraries certainly out-perform unsubsidized ones. On certain industries subsidies might not make sense, but if it's an industry where a business model is hard to maintain (like a fire department) then why oppose it? Part of the reason regulation exists is to avoid market failure; sometimes private actors don't suffice. > ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows This sounds like government doing business poorly, not like government setting rules for better management and avoiding market failure. > all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc. Well, if you have a corrupt government then yeah. There's instances of regulation done well too, though.