4 ms·

I am both an employee and a small-time investor in the stock market. I actually prefer to see companies as entities such as their only goal is maximizing profi

I am both an employee and a small-time investor in the stock market. I actually prefer to see companies as entities such as their only goal is maximizing profits, all else be damned. They will exploit every worker and will externalize every negativity in their profit-driven mandate. And typically short term profits will trump long term anything. It's the role of governments, as representatives of society, to rein in companies so that they don't act in ways that damage the society where they are inserted in. Cue in labor and union protections, environment regulations, etc and so forth. And yes, companies that break regulations should be treated as criminals, including termination.

rawgabbit 4y ago
What you appear to be saying is that corporations are an existential threat to everyone. If so, they should be abolished.
- alright_scowl 4y ago
  Not really. But they are entities designed to pursue profits as their primary motivation. With proper regulation, when the pursuit of profits align with the needs of society, they can be great to have around. Problems arise when regulation is insufficient, when regulators are complacent or corrupt, or when governments look after the desires of corporations instead of the benefit of the people. When that happens, then yes, they become a threat to society.
astrange 4y ago
> I actually prefer to see companies as entities such as their only goal is maximizing profits, all else be damned. They will exploit every worker and will externalize every negativity in their profit-driven mandate. And typically short term profits will trump long term anything. They clearly don't do this though. There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don't move out of the less profitable ones. If they were out there exploiting anyone and everyone, they'd all be selling crack instead of furniture. Or at least mandating the employees be on it for productivity.
- Keegs 4y ago
  > There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don’t move out of the less profitable ones. Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed. > they’d all be selling crack instead of furniture. Or at least mandating the employees be on it for productivity. Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). The tactics Purdue used to push OxyContin are a good example.
  - astrange 4y ago
    > Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed. That's a strategy risk… > Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). and that's a legal risk… …but acceptance of risk is how profits are made and they know it. So basically this is just saying they're single-minded in pursuit of profits except for when they aren't. It doesn't seem to have predictive power. I think a better explanation includes things like how, since most American companies are owned by the same retirement fund managers like Vanguard, their owners aren't necessarily interested in them competing maximally hard. (and yes, Purdue is an example of _actually_ doing this, so are tobacco companies.)
- alright_scowl 4y ago
  > They clearly don't do this though. Forgive me for perhaps being blind, but I fail to see it with the same clarity as you do. Typically, what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera and so forth is only government regulation, not the goddwill of executives and chairmen.
  - toss1 4y ago
    >>what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera ...? When the companies engage in the ordinary big-business practice of regulatory capture, absolutely nothing. It is just treated as a game to be hacked. And hack it, they do. Because according to your standards, companies don't need to treat everyone fairly (as a good citizen), but the govt must treat them fairly. That's how earlier this week we saw headlines that Tesla employees in Buffalo NY were organizing a union drive. Then the very next day, we see headlines that Tesla has fired 10 workers, the ones organizing it. It is illegal as hell, but they did it anyway. Why? Because Tesla knows that it'll take years for all the hearings to work their way through the courts, and the result will be a fine, which they can appeal, and delay further. Meanwhile, they figure the end cost will be less than having to deal with giving workers a fair deal. So, despite all the "excess govt regulation", the workers get exploited and screwed. It is also how Norfolk rail donated to both Trump and the Ohio gov and had regulations eased, e.g., requiring fewer workers on trains and not needing to update their technology with "extra" brakes. And now we have an environmental disaster as a result. And those costs will be 'socialized' to the taxpayers and victims in the town, while the company keeps most of it's profits (it will not pay even a small fraction of the costs and it will be years from now). So yeah, the govt structurally CAN NOT be as nimble as the companies, so the companies exploit that weakness. Great for them. Sucks for society. I'm not saying they're all bad or evil, but this over-simplistic "shareholder value only" concept /structure is not good for a sustainable society or even for sustainable corporations.
cnelsenmilt 4y ago
Almost no reasonable regulation will be effective if this is the standard of behavior. To punish a cheater when cheating is part of the game, you need incredibly strong rules and almost perfect enforcement. The subjects of the regulation will do whatever they can to "work the refs", exploit loopholes, or just get the regulations changed outright. They will ignore everything where the penalty doesn't outweigh the profit. We have seen all of these happening in modern times.
- alright_scowl 4y ago
  > Almost no reasonable regulation will be effective if this is the standard of behavior That is the standard of behavior. Regulation is what stops companies selling you contaminated food, working conditions similar to slavery, factories polluting the air and water with dangerous chemicals, so on and so forth > you need incredibly strong rules and almost perfect enforcement. And that's what citizens should demand of their governments
Mordisquitos 4y ago
Continuing on your final point, comparing the consequences businesses should face for breaking regulations with the consequences that criminals should receive, how would you feel about applying the analogy on the other side? Specifically, would you actually prefer to see people as individuals whose only goal is maximizing their personal interests, all else be damned? Should they exploit every interpersonal relationship and externalise every negativity in their selfish-driven mandate? Should short-term personal wants trump long term anything? If yes, I don't like the society that would result, but I respect the consistency in the idea. And if not, why should individuals be subject to more stringent moral rules than companies?
- alright_scowl 4y ago
  > Specifically, would you actually prefer to see people as individuals whose only goal is maximizing their personal interests, all else be damned? Should they exploit every interpersonal relationship and externalise every negativity in their selfish-driven mandate? Should short-term personal wants trump long term anything? People are already pretty selfish, and without any regulation and oversight they will definitely act in ways that are detrimental to society. That's why we have laws and law enforcement. The only difference from corporations is that people do not only pursue money. They may have different goals (sex, pleasure, power, influence). That makes people notoriously difficult to parse, and dealing with them is extremely frustrating. Corporations are easy, they are the incarnation of greed. For them money is all that matters.

rawgabbit 4y ago

What you appear to be saying is that corporations are an existential threat to everyone. If so, they should be abolished.

alright_scowl 4y ago
Not really. But they are entities designed to pursue profits as their primary motivation. With proper regulation, when the pursuit of profits align with the needs of society, they can be great to have around. Problems arise when regulation is insufficient, when regulators are complacent or corrupt, or when governments look after the desires of corporations instead of the benefit of the people. When that happens, then yes, they become a threat to society.

astrange 4y ago

> I actually prefer to see companies as entities such as their only goal is maximizing profits, all else be damned. They will exploit every worker and will externalize every negativity in their profit-driven mandate. And typically short term profits will trump long term anything. They clearly don't do this though. There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don't move out of the less profitable ones. If they were out there exploiting anyone and everyone, they'd all be selling crack instead of furniture. Or at least mandating the employees be on it for productivity.

Keegs 4y ago
> There are less profitable and more profitable industries and companies don’t move out of the less profitable ones. Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed. > they’d all be selling crack instead of furniture. Or at least mandating the employees be on it for productivity. Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). The tactics Purdue used to push OxyContin are a good example.
- astrange 4y ago
  > Entering a different market is expensive and takes a lot of time. It’s also not guaranteed you’ll succeed. That's a strategy risk… > Selling crack is against the law and afaik so is requiring employees to use PEDs (see the parent’s idea of governments deciding what’s out of bounds). and that's a legal risk… …but acceptance of risk is how profits are made and they know it. So basically this is just saying they're single-minded in pursuit of profits except for when they aren't. It doesn't seem to have predictive power. I think a better explanation includes things like how, since most American companies are owned by the same retirement fund managers like Vanguard, their owners aren't necessarily interested in them competing maximally hard. (and yes, Purdue is an example of _actually_ doing this, so are tobacco companies.)
alright_scowl 4y ago
> They clearly don't do this though. Forgive me for perhaps being blind, but I fail to see it with the same clarity as you do. Typically, what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera and so forth is only government regulation, not the goddwill of executives and chairmen.
- toss1 4y ago
  >>what stops companies from ruthlessly exploiting workers, selling products that damage society, polluting the environment, et cetera ...? When the companies engage in the ordinary big-business practice of regulatory capture, absolutely nothing. It is just treated as a game to be hacked. And hack it, they do. Because according to your standards, companies don't need to treat everyone fairly (as a good citizen), but the govt must treat them fairly. That's how earlier this week we saw headlines that Tesla employees in Buffalo NY were organizing a union drive. Then the very next day, we see headlines that Tesla has fired 10 workers, the ones organizing it. It is illegal as hell, but they did it anyway. Why? Because Tesla knows that it'll take years for all the hearings to work their way through the courts, and the result will be a fine, which they can appeal, and delay further. Meanwhile, they figure the end cost will be less than having to deal with giving workers a fair deal. So, despite all the "excess govt regulation", the workers get exploited and screwed. It is also how Norfolk rail donated to both Trump and the Ohio gov and had regulations eased, e.g., requiring fewer workers on trains and not needing to update their technology with "extra" brakes. And now we have an environmental disaster as a result. And those costs will be 'socialized' to the taxpayers and victims in the town, while the company keeps most of it's profits (it will not pay even a small fraction of the costs and it will be years from now). So yeah, the govt structurally CAN NOT be as nimble as the companies, so the companies exploit that weakness. Great for them. Sucks for society. I'm not saying they're all bad or evil, but this over-simplistic "shareholder value only" concept /structure is not good for a sustainable society or even for sustainable corporations.

cnelsenmilt 4y ago

Almost no reasonable regulation will be effective if this is the standard of behavior. To punish a cheater when cheating is part of the game, you need incredibly strong rules and almost perfect enforcement. The subjects of the regulation will do whatever they can to "work the refs", exploit loopholes, or just get the regulations changed outright. They will ignore everything where the penalty doesn't outweigh the profit. We have seen all of these happening in modern times.

alright_scowl 4y ago
> Almost no reasonable regulation will be effective if this is the standard of behavior That is the standard of behavior. Regulation is what stops companies selling you contaminated food, working conditions similar to slavery, factories polluting the air and water with dangerous chemicals, so on and so forth > you need incredibly strong rules and almost perfect enforcement. And that's what citizens should demand of their governments

Mordisquitos 4y ago

Continuing on your final point, comparing the consequences businesses should face for breaking regulations with the consequences that criminals should receive, how would you feel about applying the analogy on the other side? Specifically, would you actually prefer to see people as individuals whose only goal is maximizing their personal interests, all else be damned? Should they exploit every interpersonal relationship and externalise every negativity in their selfish-driven mandate? Should short-term personal wants trump long term anything? If yes, I don't like the society that would result, but I respect the consistency in the idea. And if not, why should individuals be subject to more stringent moral rules than companies?

alright_scowl 4y ago
> Specifically, would you actually prefer to see people as individuals whose only goal is maximizing their personal interests, all else be damned? Should they exploit every interpersonal relationship and externalise every negativity in their selfish-driven mandate? Should short-term personal wants trump long term anything? People are already pretty selfish, and without any regulation and oversight they will definitely act in ways that are detrimental to society. That's why we have laws and law enforcement. The only difference from corporations is that people do not only pursue money. They may have different goals (sex, pleasure, power, influence). That makes people notoriously difficult to parse, and dealing with them is extremely frustrating. Corporations are easy, they are the incarnation of greed. For them money is all that matters.