2 ms·

Between then and now there has been a lot of legislative and legal change empowering corporations and disempowering individuals. (Most notably Citizens United,

Between then and now there has been a lot of legislative and legal change empowering corporations and disempowering individuals. (Most notably Citizens United, but that 2010 decision postdates the Boeing takeover.) I think the main factor here, though, is that executive behavior evolved to exploit existing weaknesses in the regulatory environment in order to maximize their personal benefit at the expense of company health. You can call that a "culture change" if you like. Some (including me) argue we should respond to such changes by patching the vulnerabilities in the market environment. Others disagree and advocate letting the market sort itself out; I maintain that this means continuing to incentivize bad behavior.

tpmx 7y ago
> I think the main factor here, though, is that executive behavior evolved to exploit existing weaknesses in the regulatory environment in order to maximize their personal benefit at the expense of company health. You can call that a "culture change" if you like. What that else would you call it, though? It seems to me that the root cause is that the legislators haven't kept up with the increasingly sophisticated behavior of the companies. > Some (including me) argue we should respond to such changes by patching the vulnerabilities in the market environment. Others disagree and advocate letting the market sort itself out; I maintain that this means continuing to incentivize bad behavior. FWIW I think I'm on the same side as you here. What I worry about is that all of this patching creates more complexity, which can then in turn be exploited by the (often smarter) people working for these companies. (Seems similar to the infosec problem in software.)