3 ms·

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both o

Reality doesn't allow people to have it both ways. Either be upset that the system incentivizes the behavior, or be upset that the incentives failed. In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots (George Carlin, we miss you). People always have trouble blaming themselves. Corporations are jello. They take the shape of the mold they sit in. If they get big enough, the mold is the whole world's economy.

baddox 8y ago
Not everyone voted for the ballots which supposedly led to these decisions. Moreover, politicians lie. When government policy doesn’t reflect the desires of the public in an ostensible democracy, I find it odd to blame the people who are ruled instead of the rulers. I don’t know much about George Carlin, but from what little I’ve seen of his political commentary, I doubt he would so quickly jump to blaming the ruled instead of the rulers.
jakelazaroff 8y ago
Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! You can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior this way. "Either be upset that the system incentivizes slavery, or be upset that the incentives against slavery failed." But definitely don't be upset at the slaveowners!
- _bxg1 8y ago
  Exactly. Realistically, most large-scale businesses will amorally fill whatever set of incentives exist around them, and the most effective way to keep them from being destructive is to regulate. However, businesses are made of people, and those people still have a moral obligation to society, even if most of the ones at the top ignore it. Actions beyond moral shaming need to be taken, but one doesn't preclude the other.
  - pathseeker 8y ago
    Please explain what moral obligation you think Amazon was shirking by bringing massive tax revenue to NYC and far above average pay jobs.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  > Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! That's not what was said, at all. Be upset at your politicians. This is a democracy despite what the cynics say. The vast majority of people mad at Amazon don't even understand that they weren't being given very special treatment. Most of it came from existing state incentive programs.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    Why not also be upset at Amazon? They're doing something many people consider unethical.
whyisthewhat 8y ago
Jeff Bezos, Amazon, billionaires and mammoth corporate entities in general, are not some inert goo. They actively shape the system to work to their own benefit, and they have massively more power and influence than the average citizen and even the average elected official.
ardy42 8y ago
> In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots... Blame also lies at the feet of those people and organizations who twist the imperfect rules and governmental systems to suit themselves at the expense of others. To put it another way: all software has bugs, and many of them get exploited. While it might feel just to put all the blame on the software engineer who wrote the code (after all, wasn't he supposed to have done a perfect job?), blame still lies at the feet of those people who chose to exploit the bugs to enrich themselves and/or do harm to others. Hackers are not an impersonal force of nature, they're people who made a choice.
- mch82 8y ago
  > “all software has bugs... blame still lies at the feet of those people who choose to exploit the bugs...” Nice analogy!
- slowmovintarget 8y ago
  Except the tax incentives aren't bugs in your analogy to software. They're design choices. The system was given specific characteristics to produce the results that occurred (before Amazon backed out). If the system is so designed, then working in harmony with its design choices is not exploitation. But I'll grant you, I'm just arguing the analogy. The real problem seems to me to be that de Blasio is being a weather vane of sorts. He was a cheerleader for Amazon, doing the work to get them into the city. When that failed and political gain was to be had, he changed his tune to "OMG! I can't believe how evil they are! I'm a victim!" Amazon didn't twist the rules, they played by them (unsuccessfully, as it happens). Nor was this at the expense of others. Whether Amazon got to build a headquarters in NY or not didn't preclude others from doing so. Whether Amazon got tax incentives to go to NY or not, didn't take money away from anyone else. Additional tax revenue that might have been collected is not money that _belongs_ to someone else. It is reasonable to expect moral behavior from individuals. History tells us that corporations almost never display moral behavior. Partly this is because they permit decisions where each person in the corporation may assume that someone else will be moral; a very ordinary human failing. (Forward thinking beyond the framework of advantage for self and company is rare.) Corporations as a whole don't have a conscience. That's why we regulate. That's why we create laws with which the harm corporations might do to people is reduced and minimized so that the benefits corporations can bring may still be realized. Anthropomorphizing corporations is only useful for generating anger, which, in turn, is only useful for political gain. (Discounting First Amendment goggles.) That lands things squarely back on the voter's back in the system here in the U.S. If we go back to your analogy, voters are the ones hiring the designers and not invalidating the contract when the design goes off the rails.

baddox 8y ago

Not everyone voted for the ballots which supposedly led to these decisions. Moreover, politicians lie. When government policy doesn’t reflect the desires of the public in an ostensible democracy, I find it odd to blame the people who are ruled instead of the rulers. I don’t know much about George Carlin, but from what little I’ve seen of his political commentary, I doubt he would so quickly jump to blaming the ruled instead of the rulers.

jakelazaroff 8y ago

Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! You can justify all sorts of reprehensible behavior this way. "Either be upset that the system incentivizes slavery, or be upset that the incentives against slavery failed." But definitely don't be upset at the slaveowners!

_bxg1 8y ago
Exactly. Realistically, most large-scale businesses will amorally fill whatever set of incentives exist around them, and the most effective way to keep them from being destructive is to regulate. However, businesses are made of people, and those people still have a moral obligation to society, even if most of the ones at the top ignore it. Actions beyond moral shaming need to be taken, but one doesn't preclude the other.
- pathseeker 8y ago
  Please explain what moral obligation you think Amazon was shirking by bringing massive tax revenue to NYC and far above average pay jobs.
pathseeker 8y ago
> Using this logic, people aren't allowed to be upset at anything, as long as it's a rational action within a system. This is a weird way to look at things! That's not what was said, at all. Be upset at your politicians. This is a democracy despite what the cynics say. The vast majority of people mad at Amazon don't even understand that they weren't being given very special treatment. Most of it came from existing state incentive programs.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  Why not also be upset at Amazon? They're doing something many people consider unethical.

whyisthewhat 8y ago

Jeff Bezos, Amazon, billionaires and mammoth corporate entities in general, are not some inert goo. They actively shape the system to work to their own benefit, and they have massively more power and influence than the average citizen and even the average elected official.

ardy42 8y ago

> In both of those cases, the blame lies at the feet of the elected officials. Granted, the implication of that is the blame lies at the feet of those who cast the ballots... Blame also lies at the feet of those people and organizations who twist the imperfect rules and governmental systems to suit themselves at the expense of others. To put it another way: all software has bugs, and many of them get exploited. While it might feel just to put all the blame on the software engineer who wrote the code (after all, wasn't he supposed to have done a perfect job?), blame still lies at the feet of those people who chose to exploit the bugs to enrich themselves and/or do harm to others. Hackers are not an impersonal force of nature, they're people who made a choice.

mch82 8y ago
> “all software has bugs... blame still lies at the feet of those people who choose to exploit the bugs...” Nice analogy!
slowmovintarget 8y ago
Except the tax incentives aren't bugs in your analogy to software. They're design choices. The system was given specific characteristics to produce the results that occurred (before Amazon backed out). If the system is so designed, then working in harmony with its design choices is not exploitation. But I'll grant you, I'm just arguing the analogy. The real problem seems to me to be that de Blasio is being a weather vane of sorts. He was a cheerleader for Amazon, doing the work to get them into the city. When that failed and political gain was to be had, he changed his tune to "OMG! I can't believe how evil they are! I'm a victim!" Amazon didn't twist the rules, they played by them (unsuccessfully, as it happens). Nor was this at the expense of others. Whether Amazon got to build a headquarters in NY or not didn't preclude others from doing so. Whether Amazon got tax incentives to go to NY or not, didn't take money away from anyone else. Additional tax revenue that might have been collected is not money that _belongs_ to someone else. It is reasonable to expect moral behavior from individuals. History tells us that corporations almost never display moral behavior. Partly this is because they permit decisions where each person in the corporation may assume that someone else will be moral; a very ordinary human failing. (Forward thinking beyond the framework of advantage for self and company is rare.) Corporations as a whole don't have a conscience. That's why we regulate. That's why we create laws with which the harm corporations might do to people is reduced and minimized so that the benefits corporations can bring may still be realized. Anthropomorphizing corporations is only useful for generating anger, which, in turn, is only useful for political gain. (Discounting First Amendment goggles.) That lands things squarely back on the voter's back in the system here in the U.S. If we go back to your analogy, voters are the ones hiring the designers and not invalidating the contract when the design goes off the rails.