7 ms·

> Corporations should never be allowed to get this large. Make your case instead of dropping your groupthink everywhere. Why? And: What is the maximum size a c

by SllX 6y ago

> Corporations should never be allowed to get this large. Make your case instead of dropping your groupthink everywhere. Why? And: What is the maximum size a corporation should be allowed to grow? Who gives that permission now?

ufmace 6y ago
Would also want to know, once you decide the maximum size of a corporation, exactly what happens to it once it exceeds that size, and who determines that it has infact exceeded it, and carries out whatever the plan is for what happens at that time.
- burkaman 6y ago
  In the US, Congress decides the rules, the FTC and the Department of Justice decide when they believe a corporation is too large, and the court system decides if they're right. The corporation can then be stopped from acquiring other businesses, stopped from executing certain business practices, or broken up into smaller companies. Generally a judge ensures that the plan is carried out.
burkaman 6y ago
Because money is power, corporations are not democratic, and putting so much power in the hands of one person or a handful of people is dangerous to society. I would also refer you to the entire history of US antitrust law, which will be hard for anyone to summarize in a comment. The whole field of competition law is a question of how to balance the rights of those running a business with the rights of those affected by the business. Often those rights conflict, and there is no way for the law to be "neutral", it has to take a position on how to strike the right balance. I don't have an answer for how to determine when a corporation is too large, it's a very difficult question that I am not qualified to answer. As for who determines that, I think a democratic government should decide. I disagree with how the current US government makes these decisions, but I still think it is the right organization for the job.
- gher-shyu3i 6y ago
  > corporations are not democratic, and putting so much power in the hands of one person or a handful of people is dangerous to society. Citation needed. Democracy is not a sufficient nor even necessary requirement for prosperity or "good" in general.
  - burkaman 6y ago
    Not really possible to give you a citation, it's an opinion, or a philosophy. If you have a different idea of an ideal society, we're not going to cite our way to an agreement.
    - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
      If you're going to dictate an opinion over an entire social structure, then it better be proven to work. My idea of an ideal society has already been proven to work in the past (look at the Islamic Golden Age). However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests.
      - burkaman 6y ago
        I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "proven to work". Give me any society in the history of the world, and I'll give you a moral framework that makes that society ideal. There is no right answer, there is no reference society we can use as a baseline. Do you want me to cite some philosophers that try to justify the value of democracy? > However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests. Is this bad? Can you prove it? The idea that the few shouldn't rule over the many without their consent is a political opinion.
        gher-shyu3i 6y ago
        The modern West thinks that their version of democracy is the only way to success or prosperity, conveniently ignoring what it took them to get there. I read an interesting article that was making the argument that it's because the modern West is already prosperous that they have the luxury to run their nations under their version of democracy, not that democracy caused them to become that way. The end goal is to have a functioning, stable, and just society. Unless we're willing to stick to rules that are proven to work, we're going to keep fumbling and wondering why things are the way they are. I bring up the Islamic Golden Age because Islam places a set of rules which dictate things like government and finance, basically red lines that should not be broken. However, everything within those lines are up to society to decide as it sees fit based on the times. I don't want to say that Islam is "democractic" because that would give the wrong impression that it is fully in line with the West's current practices. It isn't. However, it has a concept known as "Shura", a form of consultation if you will, that allows society to determine how things are run within the boundaries I mentioned, even including the ruler (but not in the free for all manner how elections are run in the West). It's more nuanced, and it's been proven to work. You can cite philosophers, and I can also cite philosophers that oppose democracy (again in the Western sense). It won't get anywhere, it's all hypothetical. What I did do is show you a system that has been historically proven to work. Today's system is a fumbling mess and we keep crying about it.
beowulfey 6y ago
Well, one way to think about it is to consider what the effect of the growth might be. What good is a corporation doing getting that large? Who benefits from the amassing of so much wealth? Are they acting for the benefit of many people, or are they more like a black hole -- mindlessly absorbing money and growing over time? Certainly if a corporation can grow to get so large, it's hard to argue against it. It becomes a bit like a force of nature in that sense. But there are possibly repercussions to that, just as there would be repercussions if a black hole were to suddenly appear in our solar system.
- pgsimp 6y ago
  So far, people seem to be benefitting from Amazon.
- px43 6y ago
  I like that Jeff has the funds to dump into important projects like Blue Origin, and General Fusion, etc. Projects that have zero chance to be profitable at a small scale, but significant benefits to humanity once things start working. Elon is probabally the prime example of a crazy billionaire who dumps his wealth into wildly unprofitable ventures to get things done for the betterment of humanity. Of course most billionaires end up like Larry Ellison, whose only drive seems to be increasing the size of his boat collection. He has every right to be doing his own thing, but it would be nice if there was a way to incentivize incredibly risky projects with a potential for significant public good.
- smabie 6y ago
  while there are exceptions, most companies sell products and therefore mostly grow by selling products. That is, they grow because people think there is value to the product and fork over there hard earned money. As such, it's pretty clear that Amazon is providing tremendous value to society.
nicoffeine 6y ago
> I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. we may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. in this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. and accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. it ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people. but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall, on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country. --Thomas Jefferson, 1812 [1] When private power eclipses democratic power, you cease to have a democracy. You have a dominant aristocracy/oligopoly, which is not functionally different for 99% of the populace than a monarchy. Extremely large corporations are filled to the brim with powerful but incompetent people who got there through connections and political warfare instead of merit. A corporation should be allowed to grow until the point where they own enough of the government to make their own rules and avoid paying taxes like the rest of us. As soon as they do that, they should be split across state lines so there is more democratic control over their behavior, and they are small enough to audit and tax accordingly. [1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0...
- SllX 6y ago
  Jefferson spent his public life defending the sanctity of private life and actively fighting against expanding the size, capacity and capabilities of the Federal government beyond what he saw as virtuous. The United States is without a King nor aristocrats who hold seats in a House of Lords by their birth; it is without a House of Lords! What you advocate is anti-Jeffersonian in both its intent and nature, and therefore you are without just cause citing Jefferson. So if you wish to break with Jefferson and make your own advocation, do so without citing the dead when you clearly have no business doing so, and put your own thoughts and words behind that arrow.
megablast 6y ago
It’s obvious. Too much power under one non elected person with very few checks. It’s similar to a dictator of a small country, with global scope.
- SllX 6y ago
  That’s not obvious. They don’t have diplomatic immunity, issue passports or visas, have the power to pass laws, do not have the power to detain, arrest, prosecute, convict, imprison or kill, and they have no military power. In what way are they like dictatorships by engaging in commercial activities and being worth a large sum of money based on what their shares are bought and sold at?
- astrange 6y ago
  All people only have 24 hours a day even if they're rich. It's easy to combat them if you care more than they do; all these huge tech companies have surprisingly little political power and constantly lose local battles to activist groups and retired homeowners. Bezos can hire people to do things for him, but clearly this has limits, he isn't sending hitmen after Amazon critics even if he could pay them $1 billion Amazon shares each.

by SllX 6y ago

ufmace 6y ago

Would also want to know, once you decide the maximum size of a corporation, exactly what happens to it once it exceeds that size, and who determines that it has infact exceeded it, and carries out whatever the plan is for what happens at that time.

burkaman 6y ago
In the US, Congress decides the rules, the FTC and the Department of Justice decide when they believe a corporation is too large, and the court system decides if they're right. The corporation can then be stopped from acquiring other businesses, stopped from executing certain business practices, or broken up into smaller companies. Generally a judge ensures that the plan is carried out.

burkaman 6y ago

Because money is power, corporations are not democratic, and putting so much power in the hands of one person or a handful of people is dangerous to society. I would also refer you to the entire history of US antitrust law, which will be hard for anyone to summarize in a comment. The whole field of competition law is a question of how to balance the rights of those running a business with the rights of those affected by the business. Often those rights conflict, and there is no way for the law to be "neutral", it has to take a position on how to strike the right balance. I don't have an answer for how to determine when a corporation is too large, it's a very difficult question that I am not qualified to answer. As for who determines that, I think a democratic government should decide. I disagree with how the current US government makes these decisions, but I still think it is the right organization for the job.

gher-shyu3i 6y ago
> corporations are not democratic, and putting so much power in the hands of one person or a handful of people is dangerous to society. Citation needed. Democracy is not a sufficient nor even necessary requirement for prosperity or "good" in general.
- burkaman 6y ago
  Not really possible to give you a citation, it's an opinion, or a philosophy. If you have a different idea of an ideal society, we're not going to cite our way to an agreement.
  - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
    If you're going to dictate an opinion over an entire social structure, then it better be proven to work. My idea of an ideal society has already been proven to work in the past (look at the Islamic Golden Age). However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests.
    - burkaman 6y ago
      I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "proven to work". Give me any society in the history of the world, and I'll give you a moral framework that makes that society ideal. There is no right answer, there is no reference society we can use as a baseline. Do you want me to cite some philosophers that try to justify the value of democracy? > However, many of those in power today won't allow it to happen since it is against their interests. Is this bad? Can you prove it? The idea that the few shouldn't rule over the many without their consent is a political opinion.
      - gher-shyu3i 6y ago
        The modern West thinks that their version of democracy is the only way to success or prosperity, conveniently ignoring what it took them to get there. I read an interesting article that was making the argument that it's because the modern West is already prosperous that they have the luxury to run their nations under their version of democracy, not that democracy caused them to become that way. The end goal is to have a functioning, stable, and just society. Unless we're willing to stick to rules that are proven to work, we're going to keep fumbling and wondering why things are the way they are. I bring up the Islamic Golden Age because Islam places a set of rules which dictate things like government and finance, basically red lines that should not be broken. However, everything within those lines are up to society to decide as it sees fit based on the times. I don't want to say that Islam is "democractic" because that would give the wrong impression that it is fully in line with the West's current practices. It isn't. However, it has a concept known as "Shura", a form of consultation if you will, that allows society to determine how things are run within the boundaries I mentioned, even including the ruler (but not in the free for all manner how elections are run in the West). It's more nuanced, and it's been proven to work. You can cite philosophers, and I can also cite philosophers that oppose democracy (again in the Western sense). It won't get anywhere, it's all hypothetical. What I did do is show you a system that has been historically proven to work. Today's system is a fumbling mess and we keep crying about it.

beowulfey 6y ago

Well, one way to think about it is to consider what the effect of the growth might be. What good is a corporation doing getting that large? Who benefits from the amassing of so much wealth? Are they acting for the benefit of many people, or are they more like a black hole -- mindlessly absorbing money and growing over time? Certainly if a corporation can grow to get so large, it's hard to argue against it. It becomes a bit like a force of nature in that sense. But there are possibly repercussions to that, just as there would be repercussions if a black hole were to suddenly appear in our solar system.

pgsimp 6y ago
So far, people seem to be benefitting from Amazon.
px43 6y ago
I like that Jeff has the funds to dump into important projects like Blue Origin, and General Fusion, etc. Projects that have zero chance to be profitable at a small scale, but significant benefits to humanity once things start working. Elon is probabally the prime example of a crazy billionaire who dumps his wealth into wildly unprofitable ventures to get things done for the betterment of humanity. Of course most billionaires end up like Larry Ellison, whose only drive seems to be increasing the size of his boat collection. He has every right to be doing his own thing, but it would be nice if there was a way to incentivize incredibly risky projects with a potential for significant public good.
smabie 6y ago
while there are exceptions, most companies sell products and therefore mostly grow by selling products. That is, they grow because people think there is value to the product and fork over there hard earned money. As such, it's pretty clear that Amazon is providing tremendous value to society.

nicoffeine 6y ago

> I do not believe that in the four administrations which have taken place, there has been a single instance of departure from good faith towards other nations. we may sometimes have mistaken our rights, or made an erroneous estimate of the actions of others, but no voluntary wrong can be imputed to us. in this respect England exhibits the most remarkable phaenomenon in the universe in the contrast between the profligacy of it’s government and the probity of it’s citizens. and accordingly it is now exhibiting an example of the truth of the maxim that virtue & interest are inseparable. it ends, as might have been expected, in the ruin of it’s people. but this ruin will fall heaviest, as it ought to fall, on that hereditary aristocracy which has for generations been preparing the catastrophe. I hope we shall take warning from the example and crush in it’s birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and to bid defiance to the laws of their country. --Thomas Jefferson, 1812 [1] When private power eclipses democratic power, you cease to have a democracy. You have a dominant aristocracy/oligopoly, which is not functionally different for 99% of the populace than a monarchy. Extremely large corporations are filled to the brim with powerful but incompetent people who got there through connections and political warfare instead of merit. A corporation should be allowed to grow until the point where they own enough of the government to make their own rules and avoid paying taxes like the rest of us. As soon as they do that, they should be split across state lines so there is more democratic control over their behavior, and they are small enough to audit and tax accordingly. [1] https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0390 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-10-02-0...

SllX 6y ago
Jefferson spent his public life defending the sanctity of private life and actively fighting against expanding the size, capacity and capabilities of the Federal government beyond what he saw as virtuous. The United States is without a King nor aristocrats who hold seats in a House of Lords by their birth; it is without a House of Lords! What you advocate is anti-Jeffersonian in both its intent and nature, and therefore you are without just cause citing Jefferson. So if you wish to break with Jefferson and make your own advocation, do so without citing the dead when you clearly have no business doing so, and put your own thoughts and words behind that arrow.

megablast 6y ago

It’s obvious. Too much power under one non elected person with very few checks. It’s similar to a dictator of a small country, with global scope.

SllX 6y ago
That’s not obvious. They don’t have diplomatic immunity, issue passports or visas, have the power to pass laws, do not have the power to detain, arrest, prosecute, convict, imprison or kill, and they have no military power. In what way are they like dictatorships by engaging in commercial activities and being worth a large sum of money based on what their shares are bought and sold at?
astrange 6y ago
All people only have 24 hours a day even if they're rich. It's easy to combat them if you care more than they do; all these huge tech companies have surprisingly little political power and constantly lose local battles to activist groups and retired homeowners. Bezos can hire people to do things for him, but clearly this has limits, he isn't sending hitmen after Amazon critics even if he could pay them $1 billion Amazon shares each.