4 ms·

This post may sound flippant and is getting a lot of down votes, but this seems like an interesting discussion to be had. Do we (I am from the U.S.) tend to all

This post may sound flippant and is getting a lot of down votes, but this seems like an interesting discussion to be had. Do we (I am from the U.S.) tend to allow companies to screw us more than other countries? If so is it cultural, or something legal? Is it part of our broader convenience culture? I don't now, but it would be interesting to dig into if anyone can provide evidence for or against this.

viklove 7y ago
It's getting downvotes because it was posted in bad faith. Many Americans would say we give corporations the freedom to act how they wish, and we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms. The American school of thought (I'm calling it that to differentiate from the European school of thought) is that the amount of government meddling in interactions between two parties not involving the government should be kept to a minimum, and the individual should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. When you frame it this way, you might get less downvotes and more responses.
- huntertwo 7y ago
  > we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose Is it really bad faith when this belief is obviously horseshit? Government sponsored oligopolies exist partly because we allow corporations to exercise their freedom to act how they wish at the expense of the individual's freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The government doesn't really act to watch out for the citizenship in this context and as a result doesn't restrict the freedom of corporations to act as they wish. Given this, the statement that "Americans seem to be relatively more in favor of allowing corporations to screw them than many other countries" just seems obvious.
- heisenbit 7y ago
  This school of thought works as long as individuals are free to do business with corporations. It breaks down when there are monopolies whether they are farm equipment companies or platform operators like Amazon or Apple.
  - magduf 7y ago
    I'd just like to point out that Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly in any way at all. Nothing is forcing you to use Apple devices or services: there are lots of alternatives. In fact, in the mobile phone market alone, Apple is actually a pretty small player globally, at maybe 15% or less. It's very easy to avoid being an Apple customer. It's not that hard to avoid using Amazon either. Anything they sell can be bought somewhere else. But Amazon is frequently the cheapest and most convenient option, so it might feel like it's hard to avoid unless you're willing to pay a premium to buy somewhere else. But this just isn't the case with Apple: you have to pay a huge premium to be an Apple customer. Apple is successful solely because of marketing and brand cachet, not pricing like Amazon. Finally, there's no monopolies in farm equipment either. John Deere customers lock themselves into that vendor somewhat willingly (though there is an argument that in many places, the only local equipment dealer is a JD dealer). There are alternatives: New Holland, Kubota, etc.
- CJefferson 7y ago
  The problem is, between copyrights, patents and limited liability, we give companies a huge amount of power over consumers. That's before we start writing about the power money provides large companies.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Your comment is incoherent in the face of investors having limited liability. The intent of it is to encourage investment that benefits the public. If investors want to screw the public, we should take their limited liability toys away.
- greendude29 7y ago
  > The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms. This doesn't work. It might in a "history" book that is intentionally written to espouse pride and nationalism in your nation's ideals, but this is not the reality of human beings. The above __might__ work if all parties worked with good intent, but that's not what corporations are. They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence. This is not theory, it is practical knowledge of the world we live in. I really really wish the pro-corporate Americans are able to divorce themselves from their fantasy of what corporatism might look like when padded by bullshit about "freedom", as opposed to what it has already done and will continue to do to their government.
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    > They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence. Indeed. I feel people learn some things in school that are essentially "fixed points" of economics - like supply/demand balance - and internalize the view that markets are static. They're not. They're dynamic systems. They optimize their own environments. It's as you say - corporations (and businesses in general) will happily make the legal system change to favor them. It's what markets do. Anything that can make improve profits is sought - whether it's a better product, a better marketing lie, or a change in laws.
huntertwo 7y ago
I personally believe it is a mixture of 1) American apathy to corporate behavior 2) Corporations being most willing to dedicate resources to lobbying in the US (compared to European countries) due to its corporate friendly legal and legislature systems and extremely powerful economy
- x2f10 7y ago
  3) Corporations donating to political campaigns often influencing the candidate's / party's messaging. Perhaps this is bundling in your #2, but it's powerful enough to individually call out.
  - huntertwo 7y ago
    Yeah, that was part of what I was trying to communicate. I think another political aspect is the corporate influence on political media that heavily influences the average voter's stance on many issues related to corporate governance. I.e. CNN/Fox/NBC etc. have vast and diverse corporate goals but also control much of the political discussion that influences voters. The fact that many media companies exist under the same conglomeration only exasperates this effect.
magduf 7y ago
I think, absolutely yes. Americans generally are opposed to regulation of corporations, especially conservative ones, and most especially ones that have a libertarian streak.
- mcv 7y ago
  But they're totally fine with regulation of people, interestingly enough. Maybe not the real libertarians, but certainly the conservatives.

viklove 7y ago

It's getting downvotes because it was posted in bad faith. Many Americans would say we give corporations the freedom to act how they wish, and we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms. The American school of thought (I'm calling it that to differentiate from the European school of thought) is that the amount of government meddling in interactions between two parties not involving the government should be kept to a minimum, and the individual should be responsible for the consequences of their actions. When you frame it this way, you might get less downvotes and more responses.

huntertwo 7y ago
> we give individuals the freedom to do business with the corporations they choose Is it really bad faith when this belief is obviously horseshit? Government sponsored oligopolies exist partly because we allow corporations to exercise their freedom to act how they wish at the expense of the individual's freedom to do business with the corporations they choose. The government doesn't really act to watch out for the citizenship in this context and as a result doesn't restrict the freedom of corporations to act as they wish. Given this, the statement that "Americans seem to be relatively more in favor of allowing corporations to screw them than many other countries" just seems obvious.
heisenbit 7y ago
This school of thought works as long as individuals are free to do business with corporations. It breaks down when there are monopolies whether they are farm equipment companies or platform operators like Amazon or Apple.
- magduf 7y ago
  I'd just like to point out that Apple isn't anywhere near a monopoly in any way at all. Nothing is forcing you to use Apple devices or services: there are lots of alternatives. In fact, in the mobile phone market alone, Apple is actually a pretty small player globally, at maybe 15% or less. It's very easy to avoid being an Apple customer. It's not that hard to avoid using Amazon either. Anything they sell can be bought somewhere else. But Amazon is frequently the cheapest and most convenient option, so it might feel like it's hard to avoid unless you're willing to pay a premium to buy somewhere else. But this just isn't the case with Apple: you have to pay a huge premium to be an Apple customer. Apple is successful solely because of marketing and brand cachet, not pricing like Amazon. Finally, there's no monopolies in farm equipment either. John Deere customers lock themselves into that vendor somewhat willingly (though there is an argument that in many places, the only local equipment dealer is a JD dealer). There are alternatives: New Holland, Kubota, etc.
CJefferson 7y ago
The problem is, between copyrights, patents and limited liability, we give companies a huge amount of power over consumers. That's before we start writing about the power money provides large companies.
maxerickson 7y ago
Your comment is incoherent in the face of investors having limited liability. The intent of it is to encourage investment that benefits the public. If investors want to screw the public, we should take their limited liability toys away.
greendude29 7y ago
> The argument to be had is how much the government needs to watch out for the citizenship, because every "protective" law they pass is a restriction on the aforementioned freedoms. This doesn't work. It might in a "history" book that is intentionally written to espouse pride and nationalism in your nation's ideals, but this is not the reality of human beings. The above __might__ work if all parties worked with good intent, but that's not what corporations are. They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence. This is not theory, it is practical knowledge of the world we live in. I really really wish the pro-corporate Americans are able to divorce themselves from their fantasy of what corporatism might look like when padded by bullshit about "freedom", as opposed to what it has already done and will continue to do to their government.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  > They need to be governed, otherwise they will infect your government in order to produce a reality that is better for their existence. Indeed. I feel people learn some things in school that are essentially "fixed points" of economics - like supply/demand balance - and internalize the view that markets are static. They're not. They're dynamic systems. They optimize their own environments. It's as you say - corporations (and businesses in general) will happily make the legal system change to favor them. It's what markets do. Anything that can make improve profits is sought - whether it's a better product, a better marketing lie, or a change in laws.

huntertwo 7y ago

I personally believe it is a mixture of 1) American apathy to corporate behavior 2) Corporations being most willing to dedicate resources to lobbying in the US (compared to European countries) due to its corporate friendly legal and legislature systems and extremely powerful economy

x2f10 7y ago
3) Corporations donating to political campaigns often influencing the candidate's / party's messaging. Perhaps this is bundling in your #2, but it's powerful enough to individually call out.
- huntertwo 7y ago
  Yeah, that was part of what I was trying to communicate. I think another political aspect is the corporate influence on political media that heavily influences the average voter's stance on many issues related to corporate governance. I.e. CNN/Fox/NBC etc. have vast and diverse corporate goals but also control much of the political discussion that influences voters. The fact that many media companies exist under the same conglomeration only exasperates this effect.

magduf 7y ago

I think, absolutely yes. Americans generally are opposed to regulation of corporations, especially conservative ones, and most especially ones that have a libertarian streak.

mcv 7y ago
But they're totally fine with regulation of people, interestingly enough. Maybe not the real libertarians, but certainly the conservatives.