5 ms·

I dispute that premise. I'd hardly call America "unified" at the present moment; we are in such a state of disunity that many are refusing to accept election r

I dispute that premise. I'd hardly call America "unified" at the present moment; we are in such a state of disunity that many are refusing to accept election results. Pervasive as Amazon, Google, et al. may be, they are still much easier to escape than the United States government.

Judgmentality 6y ago
There's something to be said for Facebook being the cause of America's division right now (amongst many other things obviously).
ryall 6y ago
I'd hardly call America a country with a governmental system that's representative of the people
sbarre 6y ago
I would argue that America is a terrible example of government and governing, and that you shouldn't be using it as a comparison in your argument. Good government is hard, but it's certainly better than a corporation that is legally obligated to put profit ahead of anything else.
- adventured 6y ago
  Corporations are not legally obligated to put profit ahead of everything else. That's a bad myth that refuses to die. There is absolutely no substance to that claim. There is no legal obligation to maximize shareholder value.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    I don't know of anyone claiming it's a legal obligation. It's a natural obligation, and it's worse. The shareholders want profit maximised, and with that end, decide upon the board of directors, who decide upon the CEO. If the CEO does not maximise profits, the CEO will not remain the CEO. Therefore, the CEOs of (publicly-traded) companies are obliged to maximise profits – those who do not feel such an obligation are not CEOs.
    - sokoloff 6y ago
      Literally two posts above yours, the one your parent is replying to, are the words “legally obligated to put profit ahead of anything else.”
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Hmm. I could argue that technically there're sometimes contracts with investors, but that's not about public trading; they probably just didn't understand where the obligation comes from.
        sokoloff 6y ago
        To clarify: I don’t believe that companies are legally obligated to maximize profits. I do believe that there are people who claim that companies have that legal obligation, which is what you said you’d not observed.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - astrange 6y ago
      It's odd to claim companies are obligated to maximize profit in a thread about Amazon, whose retail operation isn't profitable and basically exists because Bezos hypnotized investors into giving him free money forever.
  - sbarre 6y ago
    Sure sure, you know what I meant.. Legally in the sense that for _most_ companies, if they don't prioritize profits, they can potentially face shareholder lawsuits, or management gets ousted and replaced by the board, etc..
adventured 6y ago
There's nothing new about the US not being united. The Democrats dispute every election they lose, just as they did in 2016. There is nothing new about it. The US has rarely been united throughout its history in fact. It's borderline a fluke that it has survived this long as one nation. And if you think it's bad now, it's going to get dramatically worse yet. The largest groups that make up the US today, that dominate its politics and culture, have absolutely nothing in common with eachother and will grow further apart as the years pass. The rancor will get much worse. The populism will get worse. The end result is obvious and unavoidable (and I'm not talking about civil war, that's a redneck fantasy; it's tyranny, oppression, endless strife, and ever worsening dysfunction as the Feds try to contain the unspooling and get ever more paranoid).
atq2119 6y ago
> Pervasive as Amazon, Google, et al. may be, they are still much easier to escape than the United States government. Like it or not, there's always going to be some powerful entity who you cannot escape because it rules the land. The only question is what shape you want that entity to have. Accountability matters, and so democracy is generally a good place to start.

Judgmentality 6y ago

There's something to be said for Facebook being the cause of America's division right now (amongst many other things obviously).

ryall 6y ago

I'd hardly call America a country with a governmental system that's representative of the people

sbarre 6y ago

I would argue that America is a terrible example of government and governing, and that you shouldn't be using it as a comparison in your argument. Good government is hard, but it's certainly better than a corporation that is legally obligated to put profit ahead of anything else.

adventured 6y ago
Corporations are not legally obligated to put profit ahead of everything else. That's a bad myth that refuses to die. There is absolutely no substance to that claim. There is no legal obligation to maximize shareholder value.
- wizzwizz4 6y ago
  I don't know of anyone claiming it's a legal obligation. It's a natural obligation, and it's worse. The shareholders want profit maximised, and with that end, decide upon the board of directors, who decide upon the CEO. If the CEO does not maximise profits, the CEO will not remain the CEO. Therefore, the CEOs of (publicly-traded) companies are obliged to maximise profits – those who do not feel such an obligation are not CEOs.
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    Literally two posts above yours, the one your parent is replying to, are the words “legally obligated to put profit ahead of anything else.”
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Hmm. I could argue that technically there're sometimes contracts with investors, but that's not about public trading; they probably just didn't understand where the obligation comes from.
      - sokoloff 6y ago
        To clarify: I don’t believe that companies are legally obligated to maximize profits. I do believe that there are people who claim that companies have that legal obligation, which is what you said you’d not observed.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - astrange 6y ago
    It's odd to claim companies are obligated to maximize profit in a thread about Amazon, whose retail operation isn't profitable and basically exists because Bezos hypnotized investors into giving him free money forever.
- sbarre 6y ago
  Sure sure, you know what I meant.. Legally in the sense that for _most_ companies, if they don't prioritize profits, they can potentially face shareholder lawsuits, or management gets ousted and replaced by the board, etc..

adventured 6y ago

There's nothing new about the US not being united. The Democrats dispute every election they lose, just as they did in 2016. There is nothing new about it. The US has rarely been united throughout its history in fact. It's borderline a fluke that it has survived this long as one nation. And if you think it's bad now, it's going to get dramatically worse yet. The largest groups that make up the US today, that dominate its politics and culture, have absolutely nothing in common with eachother and will grow further apart as the years pass. The rancor will get much worse. The populism will get worse. The end result is obvious and unavoidable (and I'm not talking about civil war, that's a redneck fantasy; it's tyranny, oppression, endless strife, and ever worsening dysfunction as the Feds try to contain the unspooling and get ever more paranoid).

atq2119 6y ago

> Pervasive as Amazon, Google, et al. may be, they are still much easier to escape than the United States government. Like it or not, there's always going to be some powerful entity who you cannot escape because it rules the land. The only question is what shape you want that entity to have. Accountability matters, and so democracy is generally a good place to start.