4 ms·

Of course, regulations are not a real substitute for having values beyond pure profit motive because regulations can actually reinforce profits by creating a re

Of course, regulations are not a real substitute for having values beyond pure profit motive because regulations can actually reinforce profits by creating a regulatory moat. Regulatory capture is also a real threat.

jjoonathan 4y ago
> having values That's your plan? THAT'S YOUR PLAN? For the people in charge to magically start valuing your quality of life without beating them over the head with regulation? Look, I hope as much as the next guy that a competitor emerges with a better offering, against all odds beats the incumbent, and unlike the last 5 times this happened does not follow the market incentive to become evil, but hope is not a strategy.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Not the GP, but: I wouldn't call it a plan, more of a goal.
- thesuitonym 4y ago
  The real answer is to change who's in charge. One way to do this is regulations, another is socialization.
  - falcor84 4y ago
    The paradox is that as long as it's difficult to become in charge, only the really ambitious people will get there, and these generally aren't the people who'll serve others. Back to the lottery system?
    - thesuitonym 4y ago
      If we move ownership from boards of investors to the people who work at a company, and make leadership democratically elected, such as in a co-op, things work out a little better. Yeah, ambitious people will still raise to the top, but their incentives will be to make the company better, not necessarily more profitable.
      - falcor84 4y ago
        Ok, let's assume for the sake of discussion that co-ops are better in every way, what then? Should we just require all shareholders to be employed full-time at the company (effectively eliminating the stock market), or just the leadership?
        thesuitonym 4y ago
        For a co-op to work, every employee (And often, every customer, though that's not necessary) gets one vote. They become the shareholders. Yes, this means that company in particular wouldn't have stock with voting shares, but that doesn't mean it can't have a stock market. For instance: There are other companies.
        falcor84 4y ago
        >There are other companies. Oh, but that's the thing, obviously there already are co-ops; my impression was that you wanted all companies to be co-ops.
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Generally I take an evolutionary view. If we accept that companies evolve through competition in markets, regulations should be designed to put selective pressures on having those values. A regulatory moat, is in my view homologous to niches in biology. Things settle into a sort of equilibrium where evolutionary change drastically slows. The main solution to this: aggressively break up monopolies(I would argue duopolies too). Other ways this equilibrium breaks is just that the environment changes. E.g some new technological breakthrough makes older technologies obsolete. Or a natural disaster in biology, throwing the ecosystem into disarray.

jjoonathan 4y ago

> having values That's your plan? THAT'S YOUR PLAN? For the people in charge to magically start valuing your quality of life without beating them over the head with regulation? Look, I hope as much as the next guy that a competitor emerges with a better offering, against all odds beats the incumbent, and unlike the last 5 times this happened does not follow the market incentive to become evil, but hope is not a strategy.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
Not the GP, but: I wouldn't call it a plan, more of a goal.
thesuitonym 4y ago
The real answer is to change who's in charge. One way to do this is regulations, another is socialization.
- falcor84 4y ago
  The paradox is that as long as it's difficult to become in charge, only the really ambitious people will get there, and these generally aren't the people who'll serve others. Back to the lottery system?
  - thesuitonym 4y ago
    If we move ownership from boards of investors to the people who work at a company, and make leadership democratically elected, such as in a co-op, things work out a little better. Yeah, ambitious people will still raise to the top, but their incentives will be to make the company better, not necessarily more profitable.
    - falcor84 4y ago
      Ok, let's assume for the sake of discussion that co-ops are better in every way, what then? Should we just require all shareholders to be employed full-time at the company (effectively eliminating the stock market), or just the leadership?
      - thesuitonym 4y ago
        For a co-op to work, every employee (And often, every customer, though that's not necessary) gets one vote. They become the shareholders. Yes, this means that company in particular wouldn't have stock with voting shares, but that doesn't mean it can't have a stock market. For instance: There are other companies.
        falcor84 4y ago
        >There are other companies. Oh, but that's the thing, obviously there already are co-ops; my impression was that you wanted all companies to be co-ops.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

Generally I take an evolutionary view. If we accept that companies evolve through competition in markets, regulations should be designed to put selective pressures on having those values. A regulatory moat, is in my view homologous to niches in biology. Things settle into a sort of equilibrium where evolutionary change drastically slows. The main solution to this: aggressively break up monopolies(I would argue duopolies too). Other ways this equilibrium breaks is just that the environment changes. E.g some new technological breakthrough makes older technologies obsolete. Or a natural disaster in biology, throwing the ecosystem into disarray.