4 ms·

That's why regulation is needed. Efficient corporations will (and must) do the most profitable and legal thing always. What would the economy look like if corpo

by bogwog 4y ago

That's why regulation is needed. Efficient corporations will (and must) do the most profitable and legal thing always. What would the economy look like if corporations behaved irrationally, by doing unprofitable things based on unpredictable/fickle human emotions? It might be a cynical way to look at it, but overall I don't think it's sustainable to place the responsibility of caring for society on corporations. Saying that Google or their employees are evil for doing the thing they're supposed to do is pointless. If they don't do <evil thing>, a competitor will do <evil thing>. The only way to save the world from <evil thing> is to make it illegal (and preferably with criminal penalties, not just small fines), so that corporations can avoid doing it without worrying about the competitive risks. (although Google and all of big tech are evil monopolists and they need to be broken up)

photochemsyn 4y ago
Governmental regulatory agencies are largely captured by the likes of Google and Apple, and if not completely captured there's a very large influence that prevents regulators from taking any actions that would actually threaten profits of monopolistic corporations. There has been a little push back recently, in terms of preventing more mergers and a push towards breaking up conglomerates, but not without a lot of political resistance: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-lina-khan-derangement-syndrome https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-lina-khan-derangement-...
akaij 4y ago
> It might be a cynical way to look at it, but overall I don't think it's sustainable to place the responsibility of caring for society on corporations. This line of thinking bothers me more than it probably should. How can corporations be thought of as separate entities from the people it consists of, in any context except legal? I wrote a lot more, but decided to distill it into one question: How can they be, in good conscience, allowed to get a pass?
- bogwog 4y ago
  Because corporations aren’t people, they’re machines that happen to be powered by human labor. There’s some wiggle room for individuals to make a difference, but ultimately the market will win in the long run. Consider the CEO of Google growing a conscience (hypothetically ofc). If he decides to cut back on <evil things> for the good of society, then society will benefit, but Google shareholders will lose. The impact will be measurable in financial statements, and when the board meets to vote on a new CEO, they’ll replace him with someone who will do a better job of making those numbers go up (aka someone without that conscience). The system self-corrects in the long run! The CEO has a legal obligation to protect the interests of share holders (“fiduciary duty”). So from that perspective, a CEO acting in the interests of society rather than shareholders is breaking the law, and could be personally liable. The incentives in the system are not set up in such a way that corporations could be reasonably expected to “self police” in a way that benefits society at the expense of shareholders. Sure, in some cases it’s possible to have a win-win scenario, where everyone benefits, but those are extremely rare. IMO this is a good system because it leads to the primary producers to perform at peak efficiency, but it doesn’t work unless it’s balanced by government regulation, which is something that the government has been miserably failing at for the past two decades (at least)
  - nescioquid 4y ago
    Going back to the question you're responding to: > How can [corporations] be, in good conscience, allowed to get a pass? I sort of expected you to answer that corporations don't get a pass. I agree with your premises: 1) corporations will follow their own incentives 2) legislation is the means for "caring for society" 3) legislation changes a company's incentives and should be enforced It goes against the Zeitgeist simply because Americans understand that their representatives and senators are largely corrupt (regulatory capture) so enforcement and legislative remedies are a pipe-dream until we deal with legislative corruption.

by bogwog 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago

Governmental regulatory agencies are largely captured by the likes of Google and Apple, and if not completely captured there's a very large influence that prevents regulators from taking any actions that would actually threaten profits of monopolistic corporations. There has been a little push back recently, in terms of preventing more mergers and a push towards breaking up conglomerates, but not without a lot of political resistance: https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-lina-khan-derangement-syndrome https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/on-lina-khan-derangement-...

akaij 4y ago

> It might be a cynical way to look at it, but overall I don't think it's sustainable to place the responsibility of caring for society on corporations. This line of thinking bothers me more than it probably should. How can corporations be thought of as separate entities from the people it consists of, in any context except legal? I wrote a lot more, but decided to distill it into one question: How can they be, in good conscience, allowed to get a pass?

bogwog 4y ago
Because corporations aren’t people, they’re machines that happen to be powered by human labor. There’s some wiggle room for individuals to make a difference, but ultimately the market will win in the long run. Consider the CEO of Google growing a conscience (hypothetically ofc). If he decides to cut back on <evil things> for the good of society, then society will benefit, but Google shareholders will lose. The impact will be measurable in financial statements, and when the board meets to vote on a new CEO, they’ll replace him with someone who will do a better job of making those numbers go up (aka someone without that conscience). The system self-corrects in the long run! The CEO has a legal obligation to protect the interests of share holders (“fiduciary duty”). So from that perspective, a CEO acting in the interests of society rather than shareholders is breaking the law, and could be personally liable. The incentives in the system are not set up in such a way that corporations could be reasonably expected to “self police” in a way that benefits society at the expense of shareholders. Sure, in some cases it’s possible to have a win-win scenario, where everyone benefits, but those are extremely rare. IMO this is a good system because it leads to the primary producers to perform at peak efficiency, but it doesn’t work unless it’s balanced by government regulation, which is something that the government has been miserably failing at for the past two decades (at least)
- nescioquid 4y ago
  Going back to the question you're responding to: > How can [corporations] be, in good conscience, allowed to get a pass? I sort of expected you to answer that corporations don't get a pass. I agree with your premises: 1) corporations will follow their own incentives 2) legislation is the means for "caring for society" 3) legislation changes a company's incentives and should be enforced It goes against the Zeitgeist simply because Americans understand that their representatives and senators are largely corrupt (regulatory capture) so enforcement and legislative remedies are a pipe-dream until we deal with legislative corruption.