5 ms·

Not really: "When companies become too large it quickly becomes a game of anti-competitive actions and distorted markets" Companies dont have our interests in

by hobs 8y ago

Not really: "When companies become too large it quickly becomes a game of anti-competitive actions and distorted markets" Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out.

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
>Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out. Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Also, only one of these groups generally has the ability to use violence against you, and if the other group has that ability, it is only because the first allowed it to be delegated.
- toss1 8y ago
  No, they are not easier to not do business with, and it is also harder to find out when we should attempt to not do business with them. Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Both require strenuous oversight, and without a govt capable and willing to constrain that oversight, you wind up wint an economy like the 1890s robber barons, which needed to be broken up by Teddy Roosevelt
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    >Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Regardless of the personal cost to not doing business with them, they won't send an armed force after you that will kidnap you. But with the government, if you want to grow a plant on your own property that they don't agree with, they will. That makes a massive difference.
    - toss1 8y ago
      Fair point. But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt? The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.
      - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
        When the government begins acting on behalf of the corporations, or they give the power of violence to the corporation (such as happens in private prisons), it does become a major problem. In those cases the corporations should be considered an extension of the government and treat as such.
        toss1 8y ago
        Yes, and at this point, it seems that the more useful model is to look at the govt as an extension of the corporations. My generalization is that for a society to function, while some concentrations of power are necessary (at a minimum to allow specialization, e.g., infrastructure, policing, military, legislation, executive functions, etc.), the key is to minimize and actively avoid concentrations of power. The largest and most dangerous concentration of power in modern times is the corporations, as we are seeing with Cicizen's United, decision, regulatory capture (FCC, Copyright law extensions, current dismantling of EPA, other regulatory agencies, etc.).
- redbeard0x0a 8y ago
  > Companies are easier to not do business with. Some companies, however at a certain point, it becomes extremely difficult to not doing business with specific companies. For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. Also, how would you stop doing business with Google. You cannot simply stop using the search engine or Gmail. You would have to block (or stop using) websites using Google Analytics, stop using sites/services that use Google's Cloud, etc.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    It does become more difficult than just not shopping at a local business, but it remains easier than deciding I don't want to be under my current government.
  - nrb 8y ago
    > For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. I can't speak to every area of their business, but as a credit consumer: You freeze your Equifax credit report and only work with lenders who will accept pulling a report from a different agency.
    - 394549 8y ago
      >> For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. > I can't speak to every area of their business, but as a credit consumer: You freeze your Equifax credit report and only work with lenders who will accept pulling a report from a different agency. Are there actually any lenders that would actually be Ok with that when you apply for a mortgage? It's de rigueur for them to demand your credit report from all three major agencies. I suspect that's because some of your accounts may be missing from one report or another, and they don't want borrowers tactically freezing the one credit report that has adverse information. I suspect the only way to stop doing business with Equifax is to stop using or applying for credit. For many people, that means forever renting their housing, because they'll never be able to buy.
- blub 8y ago
  I could understand making that that argument in a thread about Starbucks, but saying that about Google is suspiciously naive. There are companies with which it's not only difficult not to do business with, but impossible. Even a person that is not using the internet at all will still have some of their information sucked into the gaping maws of Facebook and Google through their social circle.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    If my friend take my picture in a private space and decides to share that with Google, my friend is the one doing business with them, not me. The problem is, this still does impact me, because my friend just gave information about me to Google. This hints at the problems around privacy in a world where everyone is recording things and also on the social expectations that it is fine for my friend to just upload my picture online. In the past, that was less acceptable (and in some of my social circles it was considered very anti-social to upload pictures of another's kids). Cultural norms have changed, and I risk isolating myself if I make demands of my friends to not give my information to Google. It would be akin to my avoiding Starbucks but my friends choosing to still meet there. At some point, if the corporations have the trust and engagement of my friends, I might have to choose if my stance of not doing business is more important than my friends. But despite how bad all of this is, it is still an easier thing to accomplish than deciding to avoid your government. In the end, if I'm willing to isolate myself enough, Google won't have my information. But even if I go totally off the grid, the government will still make demands of my and if I refuse them they will seek me out, using agents who are armed and who have far more leniency to use violence to make me comply. I'm not trying to say that one can easily avoid large corporations. In some cases it would require significant changes. But for as hard as it is, it is still easier than trying to avoid the government who wants to do something with/to you that you don't want done.
- s73v3r_ 8y ago
  I don't see why any of that is relevant, though.
- notfromhere 8y ago
  Not really. Many US markets are so concentrated that there are a handful of companies participating, and frequently these companies collude on policies.
- dogpuncher 8y ago
  > Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Monopolies are hard to avoid doing business, and some form of proportional representation reduces the number of people who have to agree with you before you change the makeup of a government.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out." I see it differently. Everytime I reach for my wallet I'm voting. On the other hand, the government "market" has been cornered by two parties. We get to vote for their henchmen & henchwomen who (self) serve their parties - parties that are bought and paid for by forces we can't see nor control - more than the citizens who elected them. With rare exception, my wallet has more power than your vote. Anyone who tells you otherwise needs a good history book.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  What history books are you reading? Boycotts never work unless the product of the company in question is the reason for it. Yes, the one you're thinking of included. Before she stepped on any bus, Rosa Parks volunteered to be the spark that the NAACP needed to accomplish their long-term goal of putting Civil Rights in the headlines. The leaflets were already printed and the picket signs were already made. The Montgomery Bus Company capitulated days after the boycott was announced, but the NAACP refused to end it until Parks' case had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and civil rights was dominating the headlines. It was a bit part of a grand political opera, and the Montgomery Bus Company was never the true target, just the excuse. The boycott wasn't effective, the campaign was effective. The wallet was just a stepping stone to the big prize: the vote. Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    "Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives." - Perhaps. But how often does the gov play a role in creating that monopoly? And sustaining it while the monopoly deepens it grip? - Perhaps. But with rare exception (i.e., your example?) my wallet is still more powerful than your vote. - Perhaps. But given the Snowden revelations, in the case of Google, whose side do think the government? Even if by chance the gov does something (to Google) its not going to address gov's key role in these situations.
icelancer 8y ago
>> we can vote the government out What do you think is more likely to happen? Companies losing market share because people stop spending money with them? Or government being voted out with meaningful change coming in to replace it?
- hobs 8y ago
  Cynically, neither. I just dont believe arguments made from the Koch brother's books about how companies are preferable are made in good faith, and saying them like they are matter of fact is not intellectually sound. Both are giant entities that dont give a single crap about individuals.

by hobs 8y ago

PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago

>Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out. Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Also, only one of these groups generally has the ability to use violence against you, and if the other group has that ability, it is only because the first allowed it to be delegated.

toss1 8y ago
No, they are not easier to not do business with, and it is also harder to find out when we should attempt to not do business with them. Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Both require strenuous oversight, and without a govt capable and willing to constrain that oversight, you wind up wint an economy like the 1890s robber barons, which needed to be broken up by Teddy Roosevelt
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  >Try telling people who have only Comcast to not get off the Internet, or people with only one nearby grocery store to boycott it. Regardless of the personal cost to not doing business with them, they won't send an armed force after you that will kidnap you. But with the government, if you want to grow a plant on your own property that they don't agree with, they will. That makes a massive difference.
  - toss1 8y ago
    Fair point. But, with copyright and other corporate pet issues, is it the Govt that really cares about sending the armed people to arrest and charge you, or the corporations that effectively own the govt? The further that excess corporate power is allowed to spread, the more tyrannical it will become.
    - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
      When the government begins acting on behalf of the corporations, or they give the power of violence to the corporation (such as happens in private prisons), it does become a major problem. In those cases the corporations should be considered an extension of the government and treat as such.
      - toss1 8y ago
        Yes, and at this point, it seems that the more useful model is to look at the govt as an extension of the corporations. My generalization is that for a society to function, while some concentrations of power are necessary (at a minimum to allow specialization, e.g., infrastructure, policing, military, legislation, executive functions, etc.), the key is to minimize and actively avoid concentrations of power. The largest and most dangerous concentration of power in modern times is the corporations, as we are seeing with Cicizen's United, decision, regulatory capture (FCC, Copyright law extensions, current dismantling of EPA, other regulatory agencies, etc.).
redbeard0x0a 8y ago
> Companies are easier to not do business with. Some companies, however at a certain point, it becomes extremely difficult to not doing business with specific companies. For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. Also, how would you stop doing business with Google. You cannot simply stop using the search engine or Gmail. You would have to block (or stop using) websites using Google Analytics, stop using sites/services that use Google's Cloud, etc.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  It does become more difficult than just not shopping at a local business, but it remains easier than deciding I don't want to be under my current government.
- nrb 8y ago
  > For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. I can't speak to every area of their business, but as a credit consumer: You freeze your Equifax credit report and only work with lenders who will accept pulling a report from a different agency.
  - 394549 8y ago
    >> For example: describe how you would stop doing business with Equifax. > I can't speak to every area of their business, but as a credit consumer: You freeze your Equifax credit report and only work with lenders who will accept pulling a report from a different agency. Are there actually any lenders that would actually be Ok with that when you apply for a mortgage? It's de rigueur for them to demand your credit report from all three major agencies. I suspect that's because some of your accounts may be missing from one report or another, and they don't want borrowers tactically freezing the one credit report that has adverse information. I suspect the only way to stop doing business with Equifax is to stop using or applying for credit. For many people, that means forever renting their housing, because they'll never be able to buy.
blub 8y ago
I could understand making that that argument in a thread about Starbucks, but saying that about Google is suspiciously naive. There are companies with which it's not only difficult not to do business with, but impossible. Even a person that is not using the internet at all will still have some of their information sucked into the gaping maws of Facebook and Google through their social circle.
- PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
  If my friend take my picture in a private space and decides to share that with Google, my friend is the one doing business with them, not me. The problem is, this still does impact me, because my friend just gave information about me to Google. This hints at the problems around privacy in a world where everyone is recording things and also on the social expectations that it is fine for my friend to just upload my picture online. In the past, that was less acceptable (and in some of my social circles it was considered very anti-social to upload pictures of another's kids). Cultural norms have changed, and I risk isolating myself if I make demands of my friends to not give my information to Google. It would be akin to my avoiding Starbucks but my friends choosing to still meet there. At some point, if the corporations have the trust and engagement of my friends, I might have to choose if my stance of not doing business is more important than my friends. But despite how bad all of this is, it is still an easier thing to accomplish than deciding to avoid your government. In the end, if I'm willing to isolate myself enough, Google won't have my information. But even if I go totally off the grid, the government will still make demands of my and if I refuse them they will seek me out, using agents who are armed and who have far more leniency to use violence to make me comply. I'm not trying to say that one can easily avoid large corporations. In some cases it would require significant changes. But for as hard as it is, it is still easier than trying to avoid the government who wants to do something with/to you that you don't want done.
s73v3r_ 8y ago
I don't see why any of that is relevant, though.
notfromhere 8y ago
Not really. Many US markets are so concentrated that there are a handful of companies participating, and frequently these companies collude on policies.
dogpuncher 8y ago
> Companies are easier to not do business with. Governments only get voted out if enough people agreed to vote with you. Monopolies are hard to avoid doing business, and some form of proportional representation reduces the number of people who have to agree with you before you change the makeup of a government.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> "Companies dont have our interests in mind any more than the government, but we can vote the government out." I see it differently. Everytime I reach for my wallet I'm voting. On the other hand, the government "market" has been cornered by two parties. We get to vote for their henchmen & henchwomen who (self) serve their parties - parties that are bought and paid for by forces we can't see nor control - more than the citizens who elected them. With rare exception, my wallet has more power than your vote. Anyone who tells you otherwise needs a good history book.

hannasanarion 8y ago
What history books are you reading? Boycotts never work unless the product of the company in question is the reason for it. Yes, the one you're thinking of included. Before she stepped on any bus, Rosa Parks volunteered to be the spark that the NAACP needed to accomplish their long-term goal of putting Civil Rights in the headlines. The leaflets were already printed and the picket signs were already made. The Montgomery Bus Company capitulated days after the boycott was announced, but the NAACP refused to end it until Parks' case had gone all the way to the Supreme Court and civil rights was dominating the headlines. It was a bit part of a grand political opera, and the Montgomery Bus Company was never the true target, just the excuse. The boycott wasn't effective, the campaign was effective. The wallet was just a stepping stone to the big prize: the vote. Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  "Nothing can stop an anti-consumer corporation with monopolistic power except government intervention. Roosevelt didn't bust trusts by politely recommending alternatives." - Perhaps. But how often does the gov play a role in creating that monopoly? And sustaining it while the monopoly deepens it grip? - Perhaps. But with rare exception (i.e., your example?) my wallet is still more powerful than your vote. - Perhaps. But given the Snowden revelations, in the case of Google, whose side do think the government? Even if by chance the gov does something (to Google) its not going to address gov's key role in these situations.

icelancer 8y ago

>> we can vote the government out What do you think is more likely to happen? Companies losing market share because people stop spending money with them? Or government being voted out with meaningful change coming in to replace it?

hobs 8y ago
Cynically, neither. I just dont believe arguments made from the Koch brother's books about how companies are preferable are made in good faith, and saying them like they are matter of fact is not intellectually sound. Both are giant entities that dont give a single crap about individuals.