3 ms·

I, unfortunately, can't really blame the company for doing something that's legal. They're literally just doing what's best for the company's shareholders, and

by Operyl 7y ago

I, unfortunately, can't really blame the company for doing something that's legal. They're literally just doing what's best for the company's shareholders, and they'd be yelled at for doing anything otherwise. If we want this fixed, our lawmakers need to change the laws.

shaftoe 7y ago
Curse them for not wanting to pay extra money for no gain. How dare they act out of a rational self interest.
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Rational self-interest isn’t an unalloyed good (or even necessarily a good of any sort) so I don’t understand why you’re saying what you’re saying. Yes, sometimes for some people “fuck them for acting out of rational self-interest”. Rational self-interest for Intuit is lobbying to keep the tax code complex, but fuck them for it.
  - shaftoe 7y ago
    It's reasonable to assume all entities act out of rational self-interest. To be angry with someone when they simply defend their own interests is to either hate the person/entity or to be angry with nature itself. That was my only point.
    - scarejunba 7y ago
      It is because that assumption is reasonable that it doesn’t work as a defence. My objective is also to act in rational self-interest. And so it is no surprise that I will use mechanisms other than law to bring pressure to bear. For instance, someone is legally permitted to call me an asshole. They may choose to do so completely in self-interest. I am then permitted to ask my friends to shun him and they may. I may use this implicit threat to ensure no one calls me names. I am not required to change the law to prevent being called an asshole in order to reconfigure the incentives. In the same way, I may determine it to be in my self-interest to have a large company pay my government extra taxes, even in an ex post facto manner (though the constitution bans laws, it does not ban agreements that clearly are mechanisms to bypass that prohibition). I may then bring other weapons to bear to get things to happen. The most common such technique is by directing public opinion in a certain manner. If someone were to tell me that the company dumping, entirely legally, in the waterway is just acting in self-interest, that’s irrelevant. I still don’t want the waterway dumped in so I’ll tell everyone anyway and we’ll kick up a fuss and make life hard for them, even though they are acting legally and rationally in their interest.
    - Retra 7y ago
      Then it is in our rational self-interest to be angry at them, so what is the relevance of your point?
    - throwaway2048 7y ago
      Its in my rational self interest to rob you and steal all your money, If i can ensure i wont be caught. Can't blame me right?
- downrightmike 7y ago
  While they take advantage of loot box gambling to minors.
deogeo 7y ago
Yes the laws need to be changed, but that does not absolve the companies - it's called 'lawful evil'. Did you also not blame cigarette companies for advertising and selling what they knew was poison, or oil companies for keeping their knowledge about climate change secret?
- Operyl 7y ago
  I think you took a major step up from something that isn't actively killing anyone to something that is.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Just wanted to illustrate that it's not as simple as "legal = blameless". For a less extreme example, what about Keurig's coffee DRM? Or the DRM on printer cartridges? Or Microsoft pushing the patented FAT32 (and now exFAT) filesystem? Or Disney lobbying for extended copyright? Google promoting AMP pages? Online stores using pressure tactics like "Hurry, only N left in stock!", and other dark patterns?
    - Operyl 7y ago
      And I'm just saying that, for the company, if they don't take these measures their shareholders and their board could literally throw a fit. These loopholes exist, and if they don't use them they'll just get swapped out for executives/accountants that will. If you want this fixed don't blame the company, blame the lawmakers that refuse to fix this.
jontro 7y ago
I don't think skimming countries of 1.1bn would be considered legal "The company is currently under investigation by tax authorities in the UK, Sweden and France over alleged transfer pricing irregularities and is is facing a potential bill of over $1.1bn in back taxes and penalties."

by Operyl 7y ago

shaftoe 7y ago

Curse them for not wanting to pay extra money for no gain. How dare they act out of a rational self interest.

scarejunba 7y ago
Rational self-interest isn’t an unalloyed good (or even necessarily a good of any sort) so I don’t understand why you’re saying what you’re saying. Yes, sometimes for some people “fuck them for acting out of rational self-interest”. Rational self-interest for Intuit is lobbying to keep the tax code complex, but fuck them for it.
- shaftoe 7y ago
  It's reasonable to assume all entities act out of rational self-interest. To be angry with someone when they simply defend their own interests is to either hate the person/entity or to be angry with nature itself. That was my only point.
  - scarejunba 7y ago
    It is because that assumption is reasonable that it doesn’t work as a defence. My objective is also to act in rational self-interest. And so it is no surprise that I will use mechanisms other than law to bring pressure to bear. For instance, someone is legally permitted to call me an asshole. They may choose to do so completely in self-interest. I am then permitted to ask my friends to shun him and they may. I may use this implicit threat to ensure no one calls me names. I am not required to change the law to prevent being called an asshole in order to reconfigure the incentives. In the same way, I may determine it to be in my self-interest to have a large company pay my government extra taxes, even in an ex post facto manner (though the constitution bans laws, it does not ban agreements that clearly are mechanisms to bypass that prohibition). I may then bring other weapons to bear to get things to happen. The most common such technique is by directing public opinion in a certain manner. If someone were to tell me that the company dumping, entirely legally, in the waterway is just acting in self-interest, that’s irrelevant. I still don’t want the waterway dumped in so I’ll tell everyone anyway and we’ll kick up a fuss and make life hard for them, even though they are acting legally and rationally in their interest.
  - Retra 7y ago
    Then it is in our rational self-interest to be angry at them, so what is the relevance of your point?
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Its in my rational self interest to rob you and steal all your money, If i can ensure i wont be caught. Can't blame me right?
downrightmike 7y ago
While they take advantage of loot box gambling to minors.

deogeo 7y ago

Yes the laws need to be changed, but that does not absolve the companies - it's called 'lawful evil'. Did you also not blame cigarette companies for advertising and selling what they knew was poison, or oil companies for keeping their knowledge about climate change secret?

Operyl 7y ago
I think you took a major step up from something that isn't actively killing anyone to something that is.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Just wanted to illustrate that it's not as simple as "legal = blameless". For a less extreme example, what about Keurig's coffee DRM? Or the DRM on printer cartridges? Or Microsoft pushing the patented FAT32 (and now exFAT) filesystem? Or Disney lobbying for extended copyright? Google promoting AMP pages? Online stores using pressure tactics like "Hurry, only N left in stock!", and other dark patterns?
  - Operyl 7y ago
    And I'm just saying that, for the company, if they don't take these measures their shareholders and their board could literally throw a fit. These loopholes exist, and if they don't use them they'll just get swapped out for executives/accountants that will. If you want this fixed don't blame the company, blame the lawmakers that refuse to fix this.

jontro 7y ago

I don't think skimming countries of 1.1bn would be considered legal "The company is currently under investigation by tax authorities in the UK, Sweden and France over alleged transfer pricing irregularities and is is facing a potential bill of over $1.1bn in back taxes and penalties."