4 ms·

> The difference is that Apple is not a government Yes, and this is a key difference between Europeans and (at least the libertarian/SV type of) Americans. We

> The difference is that Apple is not a government Yes, and this is a key difference between Europeans and (at least the libertarian/SV type of) Americans. We trust governments more than corporations because governments were elected by us. It's really a difference in culture.

SllX 6y ago
That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting one type of organization more than another. I think we (Americans) don’t trust either without cause, and there’s more corporations than governments so there’s more opportunities to find corporations, actually scratch that, businesses, big or small, that we trust. But by default, I think we trust both about as far as we can throw them and businesses we do trust, maybe only slightly so and in a largely transactional manner. The question is whether we are getting value for the money, not whether the businesses and owners are trustworthy.
- IgorPartola 6y ago
  The difference is that in the US we don’t trust the government to the point where even though that’s the one we have more control over, we do not choose to use it against bad corporate behavior for fear that the government will do it wrong. The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to.
  - SllX 6y ago
    Governments are self-executing power vehicles. Ascribing intent onto them isn’t particularly useful when a government has a mechanism for rewriting its reason foe existence through law. That said: > The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to. What is the basis for your claims on their effectiveness?
    - Acinyx 6y ago
      I think he used "effective" as in: "they have the power to, they are able to/it fall in their domain", not as in "they did it perfectly without overhead"
      - IgorPartola 6y ago
        I meant it as the EU has imposed regulations on big co and it hasn’t immediately ruined the EU. In the US we have this notion that if we impose even a tiny bit of common sense regulation that it will instantly ruin the economy and the country will fall apart as a result. Take minimum wage for example. Loads of economic research shows that federally mandated minimum of $15/hour would be good for the economy. Yet fully half the voters will scream bloody burger at that idea labeling it as radical. They would rather continue the government supplement the incomes of Walmart workers than having Walmart pay a fair wage because what if this hurts Walmart too much?
        SllX 6y ago
        I was hoping for some more concrete examples of what the EU has done right, but I’ll address the minimum wage. > Take minimum wage for example. Loads of economic research shows that federally mandated minimum of $15/hour would be good for the economy. In what ways has it been shown it would be good for the economy? How does it address the fact that the minimum wage is actually zero and unemployed is the real minimum wage? How does it help small retail stores that need a minimum number of bodies behind the counter when the store is open in order to stay in business? I live in a place that did implement $15/hour minimum wage, and ultimately what is been slowly doing is making some businesses unviable. Even before the pandemic forced its closure, one of my favorite shops, one I used to work at in fact when I was younger and I’ve kept in touch since, was slowly going out of business because the owner needed two bodies behind the counter to ensure timely service and his costs were greater than >$30/hour once you factored in mandatory insurance costs and taxes in addition to the usual operational overhead of just being open 16 hours in the first place. What was once a perfectly viable business was already dying just from the extra labor costs alone, with the owner who had been in the business for over 30 years putting in longer hours and making less money just because he wanted to keep his crew employed. He also had to raise prices every single year to keep up with the additional costs. He kept it going, but by the end he was putting in more money than he was taking out, and the pandemic forced its closure when his insurance company wouldn’t pay out for the spoiled product. The new owner changed business models, rather than freshly made on-site lunch, you get whatever was pre-made at her other business, no customizations, and the product and experience are completely different. The business under the original owner and the business under the new owner share a name, but they are essentially entirely different businesses. And you know what? That’s business. That’s how things go sometimes, but could he have remained in business if his labor costs weren’t so high? I think he wanted to, and it’s not like he never issued raises. Each generation of staff typically had one or two people who were earning a lot more than the rest of the crew, greater than what the minimum wage eventually became even, because the earned it by making him more money. The entire economy isn’t Walmart and Apple Stores, but the more costs you impose on businesses and the higher you raise the floor, the sooner it will be. It doesn’t matter if everyone ought to be able to afford 4oz of ice cream at $5, if fewer people are willing to pay for it at that price to cover the additional labor costs.
renewiltord 6y ago
Interesting. It is possible that German-style proportional representation would yield more faith in US government institutions than FPTP. You can rapidly substitute one corp for another in America which is probably preferable to being permanently ruled by 51% of the people.
- coliveira 6y ago
  Trust me, the problem is not being ruled by 51% of the people, but being ruled by < 1%, which is the case with American oligarchy (or at least their final goal).
  - emteycz 6y ago
    Could you please tell me more about this "oligarchy"? From my contact with the rich it seems like they want to give me lots of money so I could try some of my cool projects, not rule me - they want profit, not costs. And trust me, being ruled by the 1% would give you way better chances than you got with the 51%. The 1% took money and gave us sci-fi technologies, the 51% took absurdly more money and gave us many problems. Who's your coronavirus counter-strike leader - Gates or Trump? The rich don't want to eat you. They don't care about you. They want profit, just like you. They will spend a lot of it on pleasure, just like you. Nobody makes profit in the world you're talking about, it grinds to halt, without pleasure (and freedom is connected with that) there is no point in working. You can also avoid the 1%. They don't care, and if you're saying there are no other options then you didn't look. Actually I recommend to try - you'll find out that small and middle businesses exist, and they need your support now.
    - jpetso 6y ago
      Well, that's one kind of 1%. Then there's the other kind that has enough money and uses it to amass power in domains outside of their core business. Think Koch brothers, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch. Think large donors and Super-PACs. Think politicians that, despite financial security, wield their power not for the masses but for the handful of people that will finance their next campaign instead. This is all enabled by money but going well past pure profit. Even where only profit is concerned, there are downsides to concentrating the power in the 1%. Tax laws getting optimized for growth of capital over redistribution, loopholes large enough to allow for intergenerational dynasties over equal opportunity, copyright getting extended to a hundred years with free-use exceptions getting killed left and right. I see your point and the likes of Gates (post-Microsoft) would make a positive difference. On the other hand, I'd prefer Joe Biden over Peter Thiel. It's very much a case-by-case kind of thing.
petre 6y ago
Please do not generalise the "we". The yellow vests definitely did not trust their government and took it to the streets. If one doesn't trust a corporation they should not work for/with them.
- znpy 6y ago
  Ah, the "don't work for them" motto. I 100% agree but quite frankly i'm starting to feel like I'm missing out. A lot of FAANG people are going to agree with most left-wing arguments but they won't renounce their fat paychecks. Their argument is usually "if I'm not working for a FAANG company somebody else will do anyway" which looks quite shallow to me. So in the meantime they get to look cool and forward-looking, actually contribute to the growth of many problems, and bring home a fat paycheck.
- Tainnor 6y ago
  In every generalisation, you're obviously going to miss some nuance. French people have a long history of revolting against the political establishment, dating back to at least the French revolution, that makes them somewhat different than, say, Germany, where I live. So this is a fair point. On the other hand, I would still think that throughout most of French history, and also now with the yellow vests, people rarely went to the streets to protest for "less regulation", and especially not in order to advocate for the interests of big corporations over those of the state. Yes, there was (is?) a French brand of anarchism, but that was always more of a "property is theft" kind of anarchism, and not a US-style libertarian anarcho-capitalism. So, I think what I rather meant to say is the following: Most people in Europe trust the idea of a powerful government (even if they violently disagree with its current incarnation) much more than the idea of equally powerful private corporations.
  - petre 6y ago
    France is already over regulated. The yellow vests went to the streets to protest against reforms taxing fuel to somehow offset for climate change, then grew into an anti establishment movement. Yes, it's true, we'd rather have a big government that runs the show than big corps (from overseas). In fact Facebook threatened to leave the EU over a ban of sharing data with the US. I shall toast to the EU if this ever happens. https://www.vice.com/en/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to-pull-out-of-europe-if-it-doesnt-get-its-way https://www.vice.com/en/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to...

SllX 6y ago

That’s an interesting point, but I don’t think it’s a matter of trusting one type of organization more than another. I think we (Americans) don’t trust either without cause, and there’s more corporations than governments so there’s more opportunities to find corporations, actually scratch that, businesses, big or small, that we trust. But by default, I think we trust both about as far as we can throw them and businesses we do trust, maybe only slightly so and in a largely transactional manner. The question is whether we are getting value for the money, not whether the businesses and owners are trustworthy.

IgorPartola 6y ago
The difference is that in the US we don’t trust the government to the point where even though that’s the one we have more control over, we do not choose to use it against bad corporate behavior for fear that the government will do it wrong. The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to.
- SllX 6y ago
  Governments are self-executing power vehicles. Ascribing intent onto them isn’t particularly useful when a government has a mechanism for rewriting its reason foe existence through law. That said: > The EU sees that it can effectively regulate corporations so they use their government the way it was intended to. What is the basis for your claims on their effectiveness?
  - Acinyx 6y ago
    I think he used "effective" as in: "they have the power to, they are able to/it fall in their domain", not as in "they did it perfectly without overhead"
    - IgorPartola 6y ago
      I meant it as the EU has imposed regulations on big co and it hasn’t immediately ruined the EU. In the US we have this notion that if we impose even a tiny bit of common sense regulation that it will instantly ruin the economy and the country will fall apart as a result. Take minimum wage for example. Loads of economic research shows that federally mandated minimum of $15/hour would be good for the economy. Yet fully half the voters will scream bloody burger at that idea labeling it as radical. They would rather continue the government supplement the incomes of Walmart workers than having Walmart pay a fair wage because what if this hurts Walmart too much?
      - SllX 6y ago
        I was hoping for some more concrete examples of what the EU has done right, but I’ll address the minimum wage. > Take minimum wage for example. Loads of economic research shows that federally mandated minimum of $15/hour would be good for the economy. In what ways has it been shown it would be good for the economy? How does it address the fact that the minimum wage is actually zero and unemployed is the real minimum wage? How does it help small retail stores that need a minimum number of bodies behind the counter when the store is open in order to stay in business? I live in a place that did implement $15/hour minimum wage, and ultimately what is been slowly doing is making some businesses unviable. Even before the pandemic forced its closure, one of my favorite shops, one I used to work at in fact when I was younger and I’ve kept in touch since, was slowly going out of business because the owner needed two bodies behind the counter to ensure timely service and his costs were greater than >$30/hour once you factored in mandatory insurance costs and taxes in addition to the usual operational overhead of just being open 16 hours in the first place. What was once a perfectly viable business was already dying just from the extra labor costs alone, with the owner who had been in the business for over 30 years putting in longer hours and making less money just because he wanted to keep his crew employed. He also had to raise prices every single year to keep up with the additional costs. He kept it going, but by the end he was putting in more money than he was taking out, and the pandemic forced its closure when his insurance company wouldn’t pay out for the spoiled product. The new owner changed business models, rather than freshly made on-site lunch, you get whatever was pre-made at her other business, no customizations, and the product and experience are completely different. The business under the original owner and the business under the new owner share a name, but they are essentially entirely different businesses. And you know what? That’s business. That’s how things go sometimes, but could he have remained in business if his labor costs weren’t so high? I think he wanted to, and it’s not like he never issued raises. Each generation of staff typically had one or two people who were earning a lot more than the rest of the crew, greater than what the minimum wage eventually became even, because the earned it by making him more money. The entire economy isn’t Walmart and Apple Stores, but the more costs you impose on businesses and the higher you raise the floor, the sooner it will be. It doesn’t matter if everyone ought to be able to afford 4oz of ice cream at $5, if fewer people are willing to pay for it at that price to cover the additional labor costs.

renewiltord 6y ago

Interesting. It is possible that German-style proportional representation would yield more faith in US government institutions than FPTP. You can rapidly substitute one corp for another in America which is probably preferable to being permanently ruled by 51% of the people.

coliveira 6y ago
Trust me, the problem is not being ruled by 51% of the people, but being ruled by < 1%, which is the case with American oligarchy (or at least their final goal).
- emteycz 6y ago
  Could you please tell me more about this "oligarchy"? From my contact with the rich it seems like they want to give me lots of money so I could try some of my cool projects, not rule me - they want profit, not costs. And trust me, being ruled by the 1% would give you way better chances than you got with the 51%. The 1% took money and gave us sci-fi technologies, the 51% took absurdly more money and gave us many problems. Who's your coronavirus counter-strike leader - Gates or Trump? The rich don't want to eat you. They don't care about you. They want profit, just like you. They will spend a lot of it on pleasure, just like you. Nobody makes profit in the world you're talking about, it grinds to halt, without pleasure (and freedom is connected with that) there is no point in working. You can also avoid the 1%. They don't care, and if you're saying there are no other options then you didn't look. Actually I recommend to try - you'll find out that small and middle businesses exist, and they need your support now.
  - jpetso 6y ago
    Well, that's one kind of 1%. Then there's the other kind that has enough money and uses it to amass power in domains outside of their core business. Think Koch brothers, George Soros, Rupert Murdoch. Think large donors and Super-PACs. Think politicians that, despite financial security, wield their power not for the masses but for the handful of people that will finance their next campaign instead. This is all enabled by money but going well past pure profit. Even where only profit is concerned, there are downsides to concentrating the power in the 1%. Tax laws getting optimized for growth of capital over redistribution, loopholes large enough to allow for intergenerational dynasties over equal opportunity, copyright getting extended to a hundred years with free-use exceptions getting killed left and right. I see your point and the likes of Gates (post-Microsoft) would make a positive difference. On the other hand, I'd prefer Joe Biden over Peter Thiel. It's very much a case-by-case kind of thing.

petre 6y ago

Please do not generalise the "we". The yellow vests definitely did not trust their government and took it to the streets. If one doesn't trust a corporation they should not work for/with them.

znpy 6y ago
Ah, the "don't work for them" motto. I 100% agree but quite frankly i'm starting to feel like I'm missing out. A lot of FAANG people are going to agree with most left-wing arguments but they won't renounce their fat paychecks. Their argument is usually "if I'm not working for a FAANG company somebody else will do anyway" which looks quite shallow to me. So in the meantime they get to look cool and forward-looking, actually contribute to the growth of many problems, and bring home a fat paycheck.
Tainnor 6y ago
In every generalisation, you're obviously going to miss some nuance. French people have a long history of revolting against the political establishment, dating back to at least the French revolution, that makes them somewhat different than, say, Germany, where I live. So this is a fair point. On the other hand, I would still think that throughout most of French history, and also now with the yellow vests, people rarely went to the streets to protest for "less regulation", and especially not in order to advocate for the interests of big corporations over those of the state. Yes, there was (is?) a French brand of anarchism, but that was always more of a "property is theft" kind of anarchism, and not a US-style libertarian anarcho-capitalism. So, I think what I rather meant to say is the following: Most people in Europe trust the idea of a powerful government (even if they violently disagree with its current incarnation) much more than the idea of equally powerful private corporations.
- petre 6y ago
  France is already over regulated. The yellow vests went to the streets to protest against reforms taxing fuel to somehow offset for climate change, then grew into an anti establishment movement. Yes, it's true, we'd rather have a big government that runs the show than big corps (from overseas). In fact Facebook threatened to leave the EU over a ban of sharing data with the US. I shall toast to the EU if this ever happens. https://www.vice.com/en/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to-pull-out-of-europe-if-it-doesnt-get-its-way https://www.vice.com/en/article/889pk3/facebook-threatens-to...