4 ms·

I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate. I think most people aren't remotely aware of the types of negat

I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate. I think most people aren't remotely aware of the types of negative externalities caused by corporations because they struggle plenty in their day-to-day lives that they have no bandwidth to form an opinion about or, heck, even _learn about_ such things. Like if I ran a survey of random US citizens and asked "do you think a corporation, that through their own neglect did x damage to people/place/thing, should be made to pay for x damage?" I think the vast majority would respond "yes." I do agree that it's baffling that anyone would reply "no," but that is absolutely true and any number >0 in the no column is an indictment of us. And it's even more damning when elected officials in the US, the purported stewards of being informed, seem to be in the "no" camp. I'm tempted to say we've lost our way, but maybe we never had it to begin with.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago
Chomsky would say advertising companies have put a great deal of effort into intentionally directing people’s energy into consumption and away from everything else, including basic education about the world and one’s own level of contentment. Blaming the individual is missing the forest for the trees IMHO. Edit: phrasing.
- reubenmorais 7y ago
  Agreed. When the GP comment said > they struggle plenty in their day-to-day lives that they have no bandwidth to form an opinion about or, heck, even _learn about_ such things It reminded me of Chomsky's anecdote about listening to the radio and hearing random people calling into the station during a sports discussion program and arguing at length with paid experts, suggesting average people are perfectly capable of doing research and building nuanced opinions on complex topics, they just choose to do that for sports/cars/technology/consumption rather than politics. Or rather, are bombarded by marketing until they forget they can choose.
  - flukus 7y ago
    I don't know what Chomsky was listening too but IME talk back radio + sports is anything but nuanced and well reasoned, it's even more emotionally charged and driven by bias (particularly confirmation bias) than normal talk back. Blaming the coach even though there was a good performance with an ordinary team, blaming a key player for a loss because the screwed up at a key moment despite an overall great game, blaming a player for doing nothing despite drawing 2 defenders to let his team run riot, the complete inability to realize that bad games happen. I'd rather read youtube comments than listen to sports talk back.
    - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
      I think your observation actually strengthens the parent comment’s point that people are more capable than they realize in researching and holding opinions on the world. Political pundits you see on cable, for instance, have largely the same credibility as the rest of us. What makes them pundits is that they’re paid for their opinion. Edit: rereading the comments I think you may not have been trying to be contrary at all—my apologies for implying you were.
      - saulrh 7y ago
        I do think there's a difference between researching and holding an opinion and researching and holding an opinion that can be used to form accurate predictions about the future. I think that one of the things that's happening to us with social networks and such is that we're realizing that it is not always the case that more and freer information leads to better decisions. People have plenty of time and opportunity to do research now. They do not have the time and opportunity to learn to do good research.
    - reubenmorais 7y ago
      I think in this case the point is that people are capable of doing research and knowing the facts, keeping up with an ever changing topic. Who's the coach, what are the key players, what happened at the last game, who's being transferred where, strengths and weaknesses of teams and individual players, etc. It may very well be that the conclusions people reach starting from the facts are emotionally charged, but I'd say it's better than how it happens with politics at the moment: people start from ignorance or falsehoods, and then make emotionally charged conclusions based on that.
rsj_hn 7y ago
I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate. Yep. Here is some data: 76% of Americans say corporations have too much power https://openmarketsinstitute.org/blogs/76-americans-say-corporations-much-power/ https://openmarketsinstitute.org/blogs/76-americans-say-corp... In 1950, 60% of Americans had a favorable opinion of big business. In 2017, that number is 21%. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learning-to-love-big-business/554096/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learnin... IOW, the original poster is no longer an outsider when they rag on big business. They are in the overwhelming majority. They would have been an outsider in 1950, but not today. This also goes in cycles. Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular when he engaged in the busting up the hated Trusts. I think what we are seeing now is a return to that era, especially after all the outsourcing, low taxes paid, etc. It does seem like big business isn't really holding up its end of the social contract. In fact, corporations have become such a boogeyman that everything is blamed on them. If you want to see true catastrophic environment devastation, take a look at Eastern Europe before the fall. It was horrific. Everyone knew -- back then -- that the west, with it's capitalism, had much cleaner air and took better care of nature than the socialist east. I often wondered about whether that was really true, or just one of those fashions that comes and goes. What I think now is that what matters is power. The reason why the USSR and Eastern Europe were so awfully polluted compared to the U.S. and Western Europe was that when the state said "We need to increase steel production", then that's what they did and no one could stop them. They were absolutely single minded. They burned brown coal, dumped waste into lakes. No one could question them or stop them. Some bureaucrat said, "clear this forest" -- and it was cleared. That's why the air is unbreathable in China. Some well connected official said "Build a factory here" and they did, and no one can sue them or even challenge them. Today, the situation is different in the west. The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner. The most polluted areas would be the overpopulated areas of China and India. 90% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers in China and India. These are the places with the worst air quality. 1/3 of San Francisco's air pollution comes from China. I think, before that can really change, you'll need to empower local citizens to sue and demand improved conditions. It may be hard to sue a corporation, but it's even harder to sue a state owned enterprise, or the state as well. Empowering the individual is key. Here in the west, a bit of anti-trust would help, IMO. Make these beasts smaller and less powerful.

SomeOldThrow 7y ago

Chomsky would say advertising companies have put a great deal of effort into intentionally directing people’s energy into consumption and away from everything else, including basic education about the world and one’s own level of contentment. Blaming the individual is missing the forest for the trees IMHO. Edit: phrasing.

reubenmorais 7y ago
Agreed. When the GP comment said > they struggle plenty in their day-to-day lives that they have no bandwidth to form an opinion about or, heck, even _learn about_ such things It reminded me of Chomsky's anecdote about listening to the radio and hearing random people calling into the station during a sports discussion program and arguing at length with paid experts, suggesting average people are perfectly capable of doing research and building nuanced opinions on complex topics, they just choose to do that for sports/cars/technology/consumption rather than politics. Or rather, are bombarded by marketing until they forget they can choose.
- flukus 7y ago
  I don't know what Chomsky was listening too but IME talk back radio + sports is anything but nuanced and well reasoned, it's even more emotionally charged and driven by bias (particularly confirmation bias) than normal talk back. Blaming the coach even though there was a good performance with an ordinary team, blaming a key player for a loss because the screwed up at a key moment despite an overall great game, blaming a player for doing nothing despite drawing 2 defenders to let his team run riot, the complete inability to realize that bad games happen. I'd rather read youtube comments than listen to sports talk back.
  - SomeOldThrow 7y ago
    I think your observation actually strengthens the parent comment’s point that people are more capable than they realize in researching and holding opinions on the world. Political pundits you see on cable, for instance, have largely the same credibility as the rest of us. What makes them pundits is that they’re paid for their opinion. Edit: rereading the comments I think you may not have been trying to be contrary at all—my apologies for implying you were.
    - saulrh 7y ago
      I do think there's a difference between researching and holding an opinion and researching and holding an opinion that can be used to form accurate predictions about the future. I think that one of the things that's happening to us with social networks and such is that we're realizing that it is not always the case that more and freer information leads to better decisions. People have plenty of time and opportunity to do research now. They do not have the time and opportunity to learn to do good research.
  - reubenmorais 7y ago
    I think in this case the point is that people are capable of doing research and knowing the facts, keeping up with an ever changing topic. Who's the coach, what are the key players, what happened at the last game, who's being transferred where, strengths and weaknesses of teams and individual players, etc. It may very well be that the conclusions people reach starting from the facts are emotionally charged, but I'd say it's better than how it happens with politics at the moment: people start from ignorance or falsehoods, and then make emotionally charged conclusions based on that.

rsj_hn 7y ago

I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate. Yep. Here is some data: 76% of Americans say corporations have too much power https://openmarketsinstitute.org/blogs/76-americans-say-corporations-much-power/ https://openmarketsinstitute.org/blogs/76-americans-say-corp... In 1950, 60% of Americans had a favorable opinion of big business. In 2017, that number is 21%. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learning-to-love-big-business/554096/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learnin... IOW, the original poster is no longer an outsider when they rag on big business. They are in the overwhelming majority. They would have been an outsider in 1950, but not today. This also goes in cycles. Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular when he engaged in the busting up the hated Trusts. I think what we are seeing now is a return to that era, especially after all the outsourcing, low taxes paid, etc. It does seem like big business isn't really holding up its end of the social contract. In fact, corporations have become such a boogeyman that everything is blamed on them. If you want to see true catastrophic environment devastation, take a look at Eastern Europe before the fall. It was horrific. Everyone knew -- back then -- that the west, with it's capitalism, had much cleaner air and took better care of nature than the socialist east. I often wondered about whether that was really true, or just one of those fashions that comes and goes. What I think now is that what matters is power. The reason why the USSR and Eastern Europe were so awfully polluted compared to the U.S. and Western Europe was that when the state said "We need to increase steel production", then that's what they did and no one could stop them. They were absolutely single minded. They burned brown coal, dumped waste into lakes. No one could question them or stop them. Some bureaucrat said, "clear this forest" -- and it was cleared. That's why the air is unbreathable in China. Some well connected official said "Build a factory here" and they did, and no one can sue them or even challenge them. Today, the situation is different in the west. The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner. The most polluted areas would be the overpopulated areas of China and India. 90% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers in China and India. These are the places with the worst air quality. 1/3 of San Francisco's air pollution comes from China. I think, before that can really change, you'll need to empower local citizens to sue and demand improved conditions. It may be hard to sue a corporation, but it's even harder to sue a state owned enterprise, or the state as well. Empowering the individual is key. Here in the west, a bit of anti-trust would help, IMO. Make these beasts smaller and less powerful.