5 ms·

Capitalism is founded on the idea that the consumer is a means to an end. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc, can do as they please insofar as they keep creating valu

Capitalism is founded on the idea that the consumer is a means to an end. Apple, Google, Facebook, etc, can do as they please insofar as they keep creating value to their shareholders. Which is another way of saying "if you don't like my garden, get the hell out of it!".

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Capitalism is founded on the idea that if we let everyone focus on making money for themselves however they like, the emergent feedback loops will sort things out and we'll have a world where everyone's needs are met. In the past two or three centuries we've identified a lot of ways in which this turns out wrong. There's a kernel of a really good idea in there, true, but it also needs a lot of tuning.
- sjwright 7y ago
  Agreed, but "tuning" is an understatement. Capitalism worked well when most businesses were local and being a large, successful company meant employing a lot of people from the same communities as your customers. This proximity is largely responsible for that emergent feedback loop. Today, many businesses can become exceptionally profitable with relatively few employees. And they can treat those few employees as poorly as the market can bear because 99% of your customers don't live anywhere near them. And those forces of change are still as strong as ever. Technology and automation is speeding up change in the economy faster than ever before. Maybe there'll always be enough work for full employment, but maybe not—and the pace of change is now far too fast for human capital to keep up.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oska 7y ago
> Capitalism is founded on the idea that the consumer is a means to an end. No it's not, and repeating such myths only helps abet companies who act in such a way.
- ohduran 7y ago
  My broader point is that you as a consumer have no means to directly affect the decisions being taken by companies, other than choosing with your feet and go buy to another company or, in the case where there is no real alternative to big techs, boycott. Now, at this point, it occurred to me that if I want to access the market being created by Apple Store, I have to comply with the rules of that market. That's it. Protest is futile if you still buy the next iPhone. Buying is another way of saying "I vouch for what you're doing". Are there alternatives to not buying their stuff if you want to alter in some way how they act? My opinion is there aren't. Thus, the consumer is a means to an end. If there are no consumers, I must pivot my strategy in order to have them, but make no mistake here: Apple isn't here to make the world a better place, but to make money. You can see other places where this has happened (and in this, other explanations may also fit). Say, for instance, taxis. They used to be bad and expensive, but people had to put up with it because there were no clear alternatives. Like the Big Swinging Dicks in Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker, they can be rude because they have the power to be rude. Now, enter Uber, or a broader competitive landscape in the municipal bonds, and these behaviours are gone. Compare how a taxi driver treats you in San Francisco vs how you are treated in remote places where Uber hasn't landed yet (Santorini island in Greece is the first one that comes to mind to me) and you understand that monopolies breed this sort of reckless behaviour towards their users.
  - oska 7y ago
    Your thinking is all over the place. You've changed your criticism of capitalism into one of monopolies. Everyone understands that monopolies tend towards abuse of customers/consumers, including capitalists.
    - ohduran 7y ago
      You're right, I haven't expressed myself in the best terms.
      - bloak 7y ago
        It's best to avoid the word "capitalism" if possible because it means different things to different people. It's much safer to talk more narrowly about "free markets" if that's sufficient for the point you're making.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

Capitalism is founded on the idea that if we let everyone focus on making money for themselves however they like, the emergent feedback loops will sort things out and we'll have a world where everyone's needs are met. In the past two or three centuries we've identified a lot of ways in which this turns out wrong. There's a kernel of a really good idea in there, true, but it also needs a lot of tuning.

sjwright 7y ago
Agreed, but "tuning" is an understatement. Capitalism worked well when most businesses were local and being a large, successful company meant employing a lot of people from the same communities as your customers. This proximity is largely responsible for that emergent feedback loop. Today, many businesses can become exceptionally profitable with relatively few employees. And they can treat those few employees as poorly as the market can bear because 99% of your customers don't live anywhere near them. And those forces of change are still as strong as ever. Technology and automation is speeding up change in the economy faster than ever before. Maybe there'll always be enough work for full employment, but maybe not—and the pace of change is now far too fast for human capital to keep up.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

oska 7y ago

> Capitalism is founded on the idea that the consumer is a means to an end. No it's not, and repeating such myths only helps abet companies who act in such a way.

ohduran 7y ago
My broader point is that you as a consumer have no means to directly affect the decisions being taken by companies, other than choosing with your feet and go buy to another company or, in the case where there is no real alternative to big techs, boycott. Now, at this point, it occurred to me that if I want to access the market being created by Apple Store, I have to comply with the rules of that market. That's it. Protest is futile if you still buy the next iPhone. Buying is another way of saying "I vouch for what you're doing". Are there alternatives to not buying their stuff if you want to alter in some way how they act? My opinion is there aren't. Thus, the consumer is a means to an end. If there are no consumers, I must pivot my strategy in order to have them, but make no mistake here: Apple isn't here to make the world a better place, but to make money. You can see other places where this has happened (and in this, other explanations may also fit). Say, for instance, taxis. They used to be bad and expensive, but people had to put up with it because there were no clear alternatives. Like the Big Swinging Dicks in Michael Lewis's Liar's Poker, they can be rude because they have the power to be rude. Now, enter Uber, or a broader competitive landscape in the municipal bonds, and these behaviours are gone. Compare how a taxi driver treats you in San Francisco vs how you are treated in remote places where Uber hasn't landed yet (Santorini island in Greece is the first one that comes to mind to me) and you understand that monopolies breed this sort of reckless behaviour towards their users.
- oska 7y ago
  Your thinking is all over the place. You've changed your criticism of capitalism into one of monopolies. Everyone understands that monopolies tend towards abuse of customers/consumers, including capitalists.
  - ohduran 7y ago
    You're right, I haven't expressed myself in the best terms.
    - bloak 7y ago
      It's best to avoid the word "capitalism" if possible because it means different things to different people. It's much safer to talk more narrowly about "free markets" if that's sufficient for the point you're making.