10 ms·

What mainly catches my attention in this article is how it ends seemingly only implicating government for getting too large and not corporations. I like the arg

What mainly catches my attention in this article is how it ends seemingly only implicating government for getting too large and not corporations. I like the argument that orgs can get too big and therefore not manage things well, and I feel confused why that would only apply to government and not to other orgs that control many aspects of our lives—e.g., Facebook has more users than any government in the world and access to human communication than most governments.

cyanydeez 5y ago
any org can turn sociopathic.
clairity 5y ago
one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Oh yes, I think it did well on that, maybe that's why I felt so confused at the end, where the conclusion seemed to warn about government getting too big and not corporations, even tho most of the article seemed to warn about the ills of both. *Edit: fixed typo
  - sneak 5y ago
    The "ills" in the corporate sphere just result in reduced profits/efficiency. The "ills" of the central planning department of the government getting too large result in gulags.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      > The "ills" in the corporate sphere just result in reduced profits/efficiency. I disagree, as corporations can cause plenty of harm to people, whether physically or emotionally. > The "ills" of the central planning department of the government getting too large result in gulags. Yes, governments can have much more power over citizens, as moving from one to another can be much more difficult and the legitimacy to use violence to enforce, I agree. Maybe I just felt confused the original article didn't delve more into that, or maybe it did and I just didn't see the connection and it felt disjointed to me.
- didibus 5y ago
  > one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation Seriously? I saw nothing in the article to argue why consolidation would yield to such ills, it kind of just assumed it. Felt mostly like the article said: "why don't most firm consolidate? Well, maybe because it wouldn't end up so good? Maybe because the leader would fail to manage all of it properly?" I don't know, the whole thing was so thin on actual analysis, data, examples, annectodes, logic, etc. I felt it relied exclusively on the hope that you already are biased towards its conclusion to actually make its point. For example, it could have at the very least brought up very large successful firms that have consolidated? Like most tech giants? Or media corporations? And tried to explain why they have done so?
  - clairity 5y ago
    yes, it did a poor job of plainly spelling out the rationale, but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here. (tech) giants might be successful, but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies. firms consolidate beyond the point of maximal economic benefit because of other reasons (at root, for power & status). the (lost) point being that this is suboptimal from a strictly economic perspective (same for overgrown governments).
    - didibus 5y ago
      > but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies I didn't see that point being made, I only saw it being affirmed without substantiated reasons. Why do you believe they aren't as successful in their consolidated state as they would be in a seperated state? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? > but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here Same thing, I saw nothing to justify why whatever may be true of corporations somehow would similarly apply to a different context such as governments. Why do you believe that what is generally true for a corporate model would be for a government? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? And in both cases, are there exceptions to these truths? Are their circumstances that are required for them to hold? And if you're not going to walk me through the proof, at least make a case for why I should trust your assessment. Who are you and how much time and effort did you spend evaluating this? Did you do so in good faith? What did you do to make sure you challenged your pre-conceptions and didn't fall pray to bias? Did you have other people review your assessment? Were they themselves deep thinkers on the same topics? Do you have skin in the game? Did you test your theories in any way? Etc.
bpodgursky 5y ago
The problem is that Facebook (like IBM, etc) can fail under its own weight and incompetence without harming very many people. If the US government does... a lot of people get very badly hurt in the process.
smolder 5y ago
Not only does facebook have a tremendous size, amount of dysfunction, number of users, and pile of money, they have no responsibility to their users. There is no user representation at any $techco. The future of everything is being architected by closed door committee, free from competing ideas.
- desertraven 5y ago
  As obvious as it is, I’d not considered this. Seems quite bizarre when the situation framed like so. Should some kind of democratic process apply to such organisations?
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I've started to experiment with looking at these large social media/communication orgs less as companies and more as countries/nation-states, and when I do, the metaphor illuminates a lot for me. E.g., FB gives its citizens free services as long as it can watch (almost) everything people do and put up advertisements (almost) everywhere. And if someone breaks the laws, the Supreme Court, appointed by the President, interprets those laws. If citizens don't like the laws, they can move to another country. And lastly, if citizens don't like the President, well, there's not much they can do, besides again, maybe move to another country. > Should some kind of democratic process apply to such organisations? I've wondered what would be some effective ways to add more user voice in the ownership and governance process of these platforms. Do you have any ideas?
    - bserge 5y ago
      They're also working on creating a New World Order™ so you can't easily move to another country, which, by the way, is a terribly underestimated and underused ability at the moment.
      - jimkleiber 5y ago
        As the EU, a supranational government, strengthened in Europe, it actually made it easier to move to another country. Perhaps if the EU became more and more controlling of its member nations, then it wouldn't feel as if one were moving from another country, because each place would be quite similar in law, I don't agree that supranational governance would necessarily make it more difficult to move to another country. Also, I think it might be underused right now because it's probably really hard for most people around the world to move to another country for various reasons: financial, social, linguistic, legal, etc. I agree that moving countries can help people, I think it is currently a huge task for most and ironically, believe that better relationships between countries and an overarching form of governance may make it easier to do.
wskinner 5y ago
Because corporations are generally subject to competitive pressure, those that get so large they can no longer effectively function will go out of business. Government entities are in most cases legal monopolies and can continue to exist long after they become ineffective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction
- JackFr 5y ago
  See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm Ronald Coase’s paper from 1937 describing the pressures that lead to the formation of firms and those that constrain its size.
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Unless of course they become so large that they are able to do thing to relieve themselves of competitive pressure.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    Exactly. I agree there are more competitive pressures for smaller orgs. Once some get really big, they can still face competitive pressure from smaller upstarts, that has happened many times. They can fold from being too big and not focused enough. They can fold from trying to stitch together too many cultures and have infighting that brings them down. They can also start to buy other smaller orgs to relieve competitive pressure. They can also create lock-in policies to make it very painful for people to leave. They can also spend money on political advertising to play on people's fears that certain individuals or orgs are out to get them. Government can also do this. I guess sometimes I just get confused why people seem to fear one and not both.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The VC industry is intentionally overfeeding its startups to obtain monopolies. Returns on investment are so low the most attractive investment is a monopoly.
sneak 5y ago
Governments can legally employ violence to implement their policies and prerogatives. Corporations cannot.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Yes, I agree that governments have more physical power over most people and can employ physical violence. I do think that corporations can also employ violence, albeit of an emotional, social, or even financial kind, against their users. If someone has a digital store and for some reason, Amazon or Shopify or Visa or Stripe or Paypal kicks them off their platform, that could ruin their business/livelihood/etc., which in turn could lead to suicide or homicide or drug abuse, etc. Again, I'm not saying losing one's online business is equivalent to being thrown in prison or many of the things governments can do to people, I'm just confused why people seem to be so afraid of the government getting too big and not also at least a little afraid of corporations getting too big.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    "I'm just confused why people seem to be so afraid of the government getting too big and not also at least a little afraid of corporations getting too big." You raise valid points but it remains the case that there isn't close to an equivalence there due to government's monopoly on force. All of the worst atrocities and dystopias, whether they've been inwards-focused (famines, hyperinflation, pogroms - North Korea, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc) or outwards-focused (invasions and genocides - Axis powers in WW2) have been perpetrated by governments. You could argue that these aren't real democracies, but liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly. We have many modern mini-dystopias engineered by governments today. People are right to be fearful.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      I don't think all of the worst atrocities have been directly perpetuated by governments, with the most obvious one coming to mind being the transatlantic slave trade, where many companies facilitated the slave trade and also the slaveholding. Also gangs just came to mind. I do think that even if companies/non-governmental orgs are causing the violence, that ultimately we often look to government to resolve the conflict and/or to protect us, and if they don't, then it becomes their fault for not doing so. But again, overall, I'm not saying we shouldn't be afraid of governments wreaking absolute havoc and pain upon millions or billions of people, because, as you mention, "liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly." Governments have harmed so many humans over the history of our species and I think it makes sense to be fearful they will get too powerful and do that. I just think it also makes sense to be a little afraid that corporations/other orgs will get large enough and powerful enough that they could also do damage to us.
barsonme 5y ago
Because Facebook doesn’t build roads or bridges. They can’t tax me or put me in jail. They’re can’t put migrant children in cages or drone strike weddings. They’re not responsible for making sure our water and air are clean. They can’t ban religions or sexuality. Facebook can’t Brexit. If Facebook fails, life goes on. If my government fails, life is going to suck. A lot.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I guess I was not saying we should be equally afraid of corporations getting too centralized as we are of governments, I was just confused that it seemed to conclude with that we should only be afraid of governments getting too large. Large internet corporations can wreak havoc on one's digital life. Is that as bad as getting physically put in a cage or struck by a drone? I'd argue no. Can it still be deeply harmful to individuals? I'd argue yes. Maybe I misread the ending of the article and that the author meant that we should worry about the centralization of any org, and more so about the centralization of government orgs.
  - barsonme 5y ago
    > Maybe I misread the ending of the article and that the author meant that we should worry about the centralization of any org, and more so about the centralization of government orgs. fwiw, that’s what I got out of it.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      > These patterns, if true, are seem important regarding the ideal scales of both business and government. And I fear the U.S. public is insufficiently aware of them, as we seem to be on the verge of a historic increase in the scale and depth of government management of society. Maybe what hit me harder was the last line and the presumption that 1) it is a historic increase in the scale and depth of government management of society and 2) that we are also not seeing a large amount of corporate centralization. Maybe I perceive more corporate centralization than government centralization, as platforms have hundreds of millions or billions of users across 100+ countries, and I recall my 2005 political science class talking about the rising influence of multinational companies over nation-state governments.
ByteJockey 5y ago
The government is more dangerous than corporations. Mostly because of the size of the military.
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  The military is made up of corporations now. From the Acela corridor to mercenaries who are making up large portions of boots on the ground troops.
  - ByteJockey 5y ago
    Y'know fair. I think defense contractors need to be considered separately from most corporations. They are inherently more dangerous than your garden variety corporation. Though, my understanding is that they are still not allowed to control nuclear weapons, so I'd still put them in sub-government levels of dangerous.
Upazog 5y ago
These things are like watching waves at the beach. You take a snapshot and show it to people and few will be able to say whether the wave is coming in or going out. Everyone will have an opinion one way or the other though. Thing to remember is, we are looking at dynamic ever changing system but discuss it in static snapshots. Thats always a source of confusion. Whats important about any centralization-decdntralization debate is that its a Tradeoff, ALWAYS a tradeoff, between Convenience and Freedom (See Tim Wu's book Master Switch for more). No one side ever wins because both have value in different situations. Look at covid as an example. Each govt comes out with its own vaccination, quarantine, treatment rules. This makes sense because they each have different capacities and resources. Singapore and Germany can do thing that Vietnam and Kenya cant. Now if my job involves moving silicon chips and their raw materials through 8 countries every day, all of a sudden my work load has jumped 8x cuz I have to follow 8 different sets of rules. I say screw that shit cuz my salary isnt jumping by 8x. Next thing you know factories are shutting down and people are being let go. If you have built up enough clout over the years, you can pull different govt officials into a room and say lets solve this, and what then emerges is more standardized rules. You could say that has centralized things that were decentralized. But thats not the point cuz tomorrow you know the Germans, who strictly follow the standards, realize they can be improved but why wait around for agreement from everyone, lets add the new ones and you can see how the cycle restarts. Things are always changing.
Shmebulock 5y ago
Because corporations die all the time. Governments don't
- hannasanarion 5y ago
  Small, regional, and niche corporations die. Global conglomerates that are diversified into hundreds of different industries, many of which they have obtained near-absolute monopoly on, don't. Also, governments die all the time, there was a revolution in Afghanistan like three weeks ago, the new government hasn't even picked its flag yet, are you under a rock?
- imtringued 5y ago
  Governments die all the time. We have elections for that.
imtringued 5y ago
It feels strange how the blog is called overcoming bias and yet the conclusion is heavily biased against governments. In my opinion the rise in "government intervention" can easily be explained by growing inequality and corporate power. People blame symptoms instead of causes. Zimbabwe clearly failed because they printed money, they clearly didn't fail because the agricultural reforms destroyed their export industries and made them dependent on food imports, no way.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  > It feels strange how the blog is called overcoming bias and yet the conclusion is heavily biased against governments. I appreciate this point and maybe that also contributed to my confusion at the conclusion which seemed pretty anti-government and inherently neutral or pro-business. > People blame symptoms instead of causes. The more I've thought about things over the last 1.5 years of covid and the Trump presidency, etc., I'm starting to think that we just blame people who we think are against us and make up stories and rationale to align with our "they're bad people" narrative. I think this often comes from a deeper, "I felt bad therefore this person made me feel bad therefore they are bad therefore they are the reason everything bad is happening in my life." And, as you mention, can cause us to focus on whichever symptom or belief of causality that aligns with that story, instead of overcoming our bias and trying to see how "good people" may have done "bad things" and "bad people" may have done "good things." Also, I appreciate your points about the Zimbabwean economy and hyper-inflation, I have a 10 trillion Zim note somewhere in my house and remember taking a class on the agricultural policies of Zim at that time.
aww_dang 5y ago
Most of these large corporations are large because of government interventions. Articles of incorporation are a legal concept granted by the state. The investment landscape is distorted by gov. interventions in the market. Access to investment capital, regulatory capture, Cantillon effects and other factors favor large corporations over the small. In a truly decentralized market environment, large players and monopolists would have greater difficulty competing with new entrants.
pibechorro 5y ago
Corporations are gov created entities. So its one and the same, especially after decades of regulatory capture and revolving doors of CEOs and officials. Its the same peoblem.
- pibechorro 5y ago
  problem*
csomar 5y ago
You can opt out of Facebook. Opting out of your government is another deal, though. Also, your government control (to a large degree) Facebook and other organization. Government matter. Facebook is just another corporation.

cyanydeez 5y ago

any org can turn sociopathic.

clairity 5y ago

one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation.

jimkleiber 5y ago
Oh yes, I think it did well on that, maybe that's why I felt so confused at the end, where the conclusion seemed to warn about government getting too big and not corporations, even tho most of the article seemed to warn about the ills of both. *Edit: fixed typo
- sneak 5y ago
  The "ills" in the corporate sphere just result in reduced profits/efficiency. The "ills" of the central planning department of the government getting too large result in gulags.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    > The "ills" in the corporate sphere just result in reduced profits/efficiency. I disagree, as corporations can cause plenty of harm to people, whether physically or emotionally. > The "ills" of the central planning department of the government getting too large result in gulags. Yes, governments can have much more power over citizens, as moving from one to another can be much more difficult and the legitimacy to use violence to enforce, I agree. Maybe I just felt confused the original article didn't delve more into that, or maybe it did and I just didn't see the connection and it felt disjointed to me.
didibus 5y ago
> one thing i thought it did a good job of was pointing out both corporations and governments suffer from the ills of consolidation Seriously? I saw nothing in the article to argue why consolidation would yield to such ills, it kind of just assumed it. Felt mostly like the article said: "why don't most firm consolidate? Well, maybe because it wouldn't end up so good? Maybe because the leader would fail to manage all of it properly?" I don't know, the whole thing was so thin on actual analysis, data, examples, annectodes, logic, etc. I felt it relied exclusively on the hope that you already are biased towards its conclusion to actually make its point. For example, it could have at the very least brought up very large successful firms that have consolidated? Like most tech giants? Or media corporations? And tried to explain why they have done so?
- clairity 5y ago
  yes, it did a poor job of plainly spelling out the rationale, but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here. (tech) giants might be successful, but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies. firms consolidate beyond the point of maximal economic benefit because of other reasons (at root, for power & status). the (lost) point being that this is suboptimal from a strictly economic perspective (same for overgrown governments).
  - didibus 5y ago
    > but the point is that they’re not as successful as they could be if they were loosely federated, more focused, independent companies I didn't see that point being made, I only saw it being affirmed without substantiated reasons. Why do you believe they aren't as successful in their consolidated state as they would be in a seperated state? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? > but not of putting gov and corp on equal footing here Same thing, I saw nothing to justify why whatever may be true of corporations somehow would similarly apply to a different context such as governments. Why do you believe that what is generally true for a corporate model would be for a government? What data, annectodes, rationale, experiments, experiences, etc. lead you to believe this to be a generalized truth? And in both cases, are there exceptions to these truths? Are their circumstances that are required for them to hold? And if you're not going to walk me through the proof, at least make a case for why I should trust your assessment. Who are you and how much time and effort did you spend evaluating this? Did you do so in good faith? What did you do to make sure you challenged your pre-conceptions and didn't fall pray to bias? Did you have other people review your assessment? Were they themselves deep thinkers on the same topics? Do you have skin in the game? Did you test your theories in any way? Etc.

bpodgursky 5y ago

The problem is that Facebook (like IBM, etc) can fail under its own weight and incompetence without harming very many people. If the US government does... a lot of people get very badly hurt in the process.

smolder 5y ago

Not only does facebook have a tremendous size, amount of dysfunction, number of users, and pile of money, they have no responsibility to their users. There is no user representation at any $techco. The future of everything is being architected by closed door committee, free from competing ideas.

desertraven 5y ago
As obvious as it is, I’d not considered this. Seems quite bizarre when the situation framed like so. Should some kind of democratic process apply to such organisations?
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  I've started to experiment with looking at these large social media/communication orgs less as companies and more as countries/nation-states, and when I do, the metaphor illuminates a lot for me. E.g., FB gives its citizens free services as long as it can watch (almost) everything people do and put up advertisements (almost) everywhere. And if someone breaks the laws, the Supreme Court, appointed by the President, interprets those laws. If citizens don't like the laws, they can move to another country. And lastly, if citizens don't like the President, well, there's not much they can do, besides again, maybe move to another country. > Should some kind of democratic process apply to such organisations? I've wondered what would be some effective ways to add more user voice in the ownership and governance process of these platforms. Do you have any ideas?
  - bserge 5y ago
    They're also working on creating a New World Order™ so you can't easily move to another country, which, by the way, is a terribly underestimated and underused ability at the moment.
    - jimkleiber 5y ago
      As the EU, a supranational government, strengthened in Europe, it actually made it easier to move to another country. Perhaps if the EU became more and more controlling of its member nations, then it wouldn't feel as if one were moving from another country, because each place would be quite similar in law, I don't agree that supranational governance would necessarily make it more difficult to move to another country. Also, I think it might be underused right now because it's probably really hard for most people around the world to move to another country for various reasons: financial, social, linguistic, legal, etc. I agree that moving countries can help people, I think it is currently a huge task for most and ironically, believe that better relationships between countries and an overarching form of governance may make it easier to do.

wskinner 5y ago

Because corporations are generally subject to competitive pressure, those that get so large they can no longer effectively function will go out of business. Government entities are in most cases legal monopolies and can continue to exist long after they become ineffective. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_destruction

JackFr 5y ago
See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_the_Firm Ronald Coase’s paper from 1937 describing the pressures that lead to the formation of firms and those that constrain its size.
tshaddox 5y ago
Unless of course they become so large that they are able to do thing to relieve themselves of competitive pressure.
- jimkleiber 5y ago
  Exactly. I agree there are more competitive pressures for smaller orgs. Once some get really big, they can still face competitive pressure from smaller upstarts, that has happened many times. They can fold from being too big and not focused enough. They can fold from trying to stitch together too many cultures and have infighting that brings them down. They can also start to buy other smaller orgs to relieve competitive pressure. They can also create lock-in policies to make it very painful for people to leave. They can also spend money on political advertising to play on people's fears that certain individuals or orgs are out to get them. Government can also do this. I guess sometimes I just get confused why people seem to fear one and not both.
imtringued 5y ago
The VC industry is intentionally overfeeding its startups to obtain monopolies. Returns on investment are so low the most attractive investment is a monopoly.

sneak 5y ago

Governments can legally employ violence to implement their policies and prerogatives. Corporations cannot.

jimkleiber 5y ago
Yes, I agree that governments have more physical power over most people and can employ physical violence. I do think that corporations can also employ violence, albeit of an emotional, social, or even financial kind, against their users. If someone has a digital store and for some reason, Amazon or Shopify or Visa or Stripe or Paypal kicks them off their platform, that could ruin their business/livelihood/etc., which in turn could lead to suicide or homicide or drug abuse, etc. Again, I'm not saying losing one's online business is equivalent to being thrown in prison or many of the things governments can do to people, I'm just confused why people seem to be so afraid of the government getting too big and not also at least a little afraid of corporations getting too big.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  "I'm just confused why people seem to be so afraid of the government getting too big and not also at least a little afraid of corporations getting too big." You raise valid points but it remains the case that there isn't close to an equivalence there due to government's monopoly on force. All of the worst atrocities and dystopias, whether they've been inwards-focused (famines, hyperinflation, pogroms - North Korea, Venezuela, Cambodia, etc) or outwards-focused (invasions and genocides - Axis powers in WW2) have been perpetrated by governments. You could argue that these aren't real democracies, but liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly. We have many modern mini-dystopias engineered by governments today. People are right to be fearful.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    I don't think all of the worst atrocities have been directly perpetuated by governments, with the most obvious one coming to mind being the transatlantic slave trade, where many companies facilitated the slave trade and also the slaveholding. Also gangs just came to mind. I do think that even if companies/non-governmental orgs are causing the violence, that ultimately we often look to government to resolve the conflict and/or to protect us, and if they don't, then it becomes their fault for not doing so. But again, overall, I'm not saying we shouldn't be afraid of governments wreaking absolute havoc and pain upon millions or billions of people, because, as you mention, "liberal democracies are but a hop, skip and jump away from autocratic dictatorial hell as history has shown repeatedly." Governments have harmed so many humans over the history of our species and I think it makes sense to be fearful they will get too powerful and do that. I just think it also makes sense to be a little afraid that corporations/other orgs will get large enough and powerful enough that they could also do damage to us.

barsonme 5y ago

Because Facebook doesn’t build roads or bridges. They can’t tax me or put me in jail. They’re can’t put migrant children in cages or drone strike weddings. They’re not responsible for making sure our water and air are clean. They can’t ban religions or sexuality. Facebook can’t Brexit. If Facebook fails, life goes on. If my government fails, life is going to suck. A lot.

jimkleiber 5y ago
I guess I was not saying we should be equally afraid of corporations getting too centralized as we are of governments, I was just confused that it seemed to conclude with that we should only be afraid of governments getting too large. Large internet corporations can wreak havoc on one's digital life. Is that as bad as getting physically put in a cage or struck by a drone? I'd argue no. Can it still be deeply harmful to individuals? I'd argue yes. Maybe I misread the ending of the article and that the author meant that we should worry about the centralization of any org, and more so about the centralization of government orgs.
- barsonme 5y ago
  > Maybe I misread the ending of the article and that the author meant that we should worry about the centralization of any org, and more so about the centralization of government orgs. fwiw, that’s what I got out of it.
  - jimkleiber 5y ago
    > These patterns, if true, are seem important regarding the ideal scales of both business and government. And I fear the U.S. public is insufficiently aware of them, as we seem to be on the verge of a historic increase in the scale and depth of government management of society. Maybe what hit me harder was the last line and the presumption that 1) it is a historic increase in the scale and depth of government management of society and 2) that we are also not seeing a large amount of corporate centralization. Maybe I perceive more corporate centralization than government centralization, as platforms have hundreds of millions or billions of users across 100+ countries, and I recall my 2005 political science class talking about the rising influence of multinational companies over nation-state governments.

ByteJockey 5y ago

The government is more dangerous than corporations. Mostly because of the size of the military.

femiagbabiaka 5y ago
The military is made up of corporations now. From the Acela corridor to mercenaries who are making up large portions of boots on the ground troops.
- ByteJockey 5y ago
  Y'know fair. I think defense contractors need to be considered separately from most corporations. They are inherently more dangerous than your garden variety corporation. Though, my understanding is that they are still not allowed to control nuclear weapons, so I'd still put them in sub-government levels of dangerous.

Upazog 5y ago

These things are like watching waves at the beach. You take a snapshot and show it to people and few will be able to say whether the wave is coming in or going out. Everyone will have an opinion one way or the other though. Thing to remember is, we are looking at dynamic ever changing system but discuss it in static snapshots. Thats always a source of confusion. Whats important about any centralization-decdntralization debate is that its a Tradeoff, ALWAYS a tradeoff, between Convenience and Freedom (See Tim Wu's book Master Switch for more). No one side ever wins because both have value in different situations. Look at covid as an example. Each govt comes out with its own vaccination, quarantine, treatment rules. This makes sense because they each have different capacities and resources. Singapore and Germany can do thing that Vietnam and Kenya cant. Now if my job involves moving silicon chips and their raw materials through 8 countries every day, all of a sudden my work load has jumped 8x cuz I have to follow 8 different sets of rules. I say screw that shit cuz my salary isnt jumping by 8x. Next thing you know factories are shutting down and people are being let go. If you have built up enough clout over the years, you can pull different govt officials into a room and say lets solve this, and what then emerges is more standardized rules. You could say that has centralized things that were decentralized. But thats not the point cuz tomorrow you know the Germans, who strictly follow the standards, realize they can be improved but why wait around for agreement from everyone, lets add the new ones and you can see how the cycle restarts. Things are always changing.

Shmebulock 5y ago

Because corporations die all the time. Governments don't

hannasanarion 5y ago
Small, regional, and niche corporations die. Global conglomerates that are diversified into hundreds of different industries, many of which they have obtained near-absolute monopoly on, don't. Also, governments die all the time, there was a revolution in Afghanistan like three weeks ago, the new government hasn't even picked its flag yet, are you under a rock?
imtringued 5y ago
Governments die all the time. We have elections for that.

imtringued 5y ago

It feels strange how the blog is called overcoming bias and yet the conclusion is heavily biased against governments. In my opinion the rise in "government intervention" can easily be explained by growing inequality and corporate power. People blame symptoms instead of causes. Zimbabwe clearly failed because they printed money, they clearly didn't fail because the agricultural reforms destroyed their export industries and made them dependent on food imports, no way.

jimkleiber 5y ago
> It feels strange how the blog is called overcoming bias and yet the conclusion is heavily biased against governments. I appreciate this point and maybe that also contributed to my confusion at the conclusion which seemed pretty anti-government and inherently neutral or pro-business. > People blame symptoms instead of causes. The more I've thought about things over the last 1.5 years of covid and the Trump presidency, etc., I'm starting to think that we just blame people who we think are against us and make up stories and rationale to align with our "they're bad people" narrative. I think this often comes from a deeper, "I felt bad therefore this person made me feel bad therefore they are bad therefore they are the reason everything bad is happening in my life." And, as you mention, can cause us to focus on whichever symptom or belief of causality that aligns with that story, instead of overcoming our bias and trying to see how "good people" may have done "bad things" and "bad people" may have done "good things." Also, I appreciate your points about the Zimbabwean economy and hyper-inflation, I have a 10 trillion Zim note somewhere in my house and remember taking a class on the agricultural policies of Zim at that time.

aww_dang 5y ago

Most of these large corporations are large because of government interventions. Articles of incorporation are a legal concept granted by the state. The investment landscape is distorted by gov. interventions in the market. Access to investment capital, regulatory capture, Cantillon effects and other factors favor large corporations over the small. In a truly decentralized market environment, large players and monopolists would have greater difficulty competing with new entrants.

pibechorro 5y ago

Corporations are gov created entities. So its one and the same, especially after decades of regulatory capture and revolving doors of CEOs and officials. Its the same peoblem.

pibechorro 5y ago
problem*

csomar 5y ago

You can opt out of Facebook. Opting out of your government is another deal, though. Also, your government control (to a large degree) Facebook and other organization. Government matter. Facebook is just another corporation.