4 ms·

I agree with that. While I don’t morally agree with Amazon policies, we must understand that companies will always optimize to win the capitalism’s game whatev

by pjerem 5y ago

I agree with that. While I don’t morally agree with Amazon policies, we must understand that companies will always optimize to win the capitalism’s game whatever the human cost. However, as a society, our role is not to ask Amazon (or whatever misbehaving company) to stop being bad guys, but to change the rules of the game so that immoral behavior ceases to be a competitive advantage.

FredPret 5y ago
Publicly-traded companies are owned by a subset of society. Sure we can tell them to stop being bad guys. Ever hear of activist shareholders?
- Clubber 5y ago
  The only activist shareholders I'm aware of, like Carl Icahn are activists for themselves. Plus, you really have to have 50% + 1 to make a difference, and then there are still mechanisms against you. You just need to come up with half of $1.74 trillion as of today, and of course enough people who want to sell. No, I think there are more effective strategies than that.
  - FredPret 5y ago
    It's only ineffective because it hasn't been tried at scale. If you can co-ordinate enough voters to move an election, you can co-ordinate enough money to influence corporate governance. A lot of AGMs are simply rubber-stamping exercises (look at how many directors are voted in again and again with 80-95% of the vote?!) It does not have to be this way. You don't have to literally own Amazon to change their ways - in theory you can buy one share and ask some pointed questions at the AGM. If the other shareholders see that change is in their best interest, they will vote accordingly. Sadly, most are asleep at the wheel.
    - is_dang_erect6 5y ago
      Welp, american “capitalism” has officially jumped the shark. Jk it jumped a long time ago. But this is great stuff.
    - pjerem 5y ago
      I think you missed my point. If this misbehaving is a competitive advantage, you will have a hard time convincing shareholders that they must stop.
- wvenable 5y ago
  You going to do that with every company?
zouhair 5y ago
The problem is that companies like Amazon are so big and so rich they are functionally running the country.

by pjerem 5y ago

FredPret 5y ago

Publicly-traded companies are owned by a subset of society. Sure we can tell them to stop being bad guys. Ever hear of activist shareholders?

Clubber 5y ago
The only activist shareholders I'm aware of, like Carl Icahn are activists for themselves. Plus, you really have to have 50% + 1 to make a difference, and then there are still mechanisms against you. You just need to come up with half of $1.74 trillion as of today, and of course enough people who want to sell. No, I think there are more effective strategies than that.
- FredPret 5y ago
  It's only ineffective because it hasn't been tried at scale. If you can co-ordinate enough voters to move an election, you can co-ordinate enough money to influence corporate governance. A lot of AGMs are simply rubber-stamping exercises (look at how many directors are voted in again and again with 80-95% of the vote?!) It does not have to be this way. You don't have to literally own Amazon to change their ways - in theory you can buy one share and ask some pointed questions at the AGM. If the other shareholders see that change is in their best interest, they will vote accordingly. Sadly, most are asleep at the wheel.
  - is_dang_erect6 5y ago
    Welp, american “capitalism” has officially jumped the shark. Jk it jumped a long time ago. But this is great stuff.
  - pjerem 5y ago
    I think you missed my point. If this misbehaving is a competitive advantage, you will have a hard time convincing shareholders that they must stop.
wvenable 5y ago
You going to do that with every company?

zouhair 5y ago

The problem is that companies like Amazon are so big and so rich they are functionally running the country.