3 ms·

It probably would happen, it'd just take more time. The best minds of my generation are trying to become famous on tiktok, resting and vesting at Big Tech, or w

It probably would happen, it'd just take more time. The best minds of my generation are trying to become famous on tiktok, resting and vesting at Big Tech, or writing day trading algorithms. Minimal work to max profit is what we're all trying to optimize.

JohnFen 4y ago
> Minimal work to max profit is what we're all trying to optimize. That attitude is why John Deere and similar have the anticustomer policies that they do.
- mcguire 4y ago
  That, as they say, is the purpose of any corporation. Their responsibility is to their shareholders.
  - wavefunction 4y ago
    The purpose of incorporation is to encourage business speculation by offering a mechanism to limit personal liability of the owners. That's the only purpose a corporation has and they definitely don't have responsibilities themselves as they are only a legal fiction. The employees of a corporation have responsibilities.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    No. This is a mischaracterization of both the purpose of corporations and the responsibility corporations have to their shareholders. The purpose of a corporation is not "profit above all else". Corporations are also supposed to operate in a manner that benefits society. We used to actually strip corporations of their charters when they failed their social responsibility. The responsibility to shareholders depends a lot on the charter, but in general, it's to run the company in a profitable and sustainable manner. Again, it's not "make the most money possible no matter what". If that were the case, then there would be no corporations engaging in anything but the highest-margin sorts of business. So there'd be no low-margin stuff like toilet paper.
- autoexec 4y ago
  Legislation being opposed by large corporations is becoming a decent indicator that passing the law will be beneficial for society and we'd all be better off enacting it.
gnarbarian 4y ago
I think things are moving in the opposite direction. tech has enabled heavier handed control over products Long after they are sold. often customers legally do not own the products they buy through IP law shenanigans amounting to legal machinations as bizarre as leasing a pair of tennis shoes for $120. you're free to throw them out but you may not use them in a way that reflects poorly on the brand.

JohnFen 4y ago

> Minimal work to max profit is what we're all trying to optimize. That attitude is why John Deere and similar have the anticustomer policies that they do.

mcguire 4y ago
That, as they say, is the purpose of any corporation. Their responsibility is to their shareholders.
- wavefunction 4y ago
  The purpose of incorporation is to encourage business speculation by offering a mechanism to limit personal liability of the owners. That's the only purpose a corporation has and they definitely don't have responsibilities themselves as they are only a legal fiction. The employees of a corporation have responsibilities.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  No. This is a mischaracterization of both the purpose of corporations and the responsibility corporations have to their shareholders. The purpose of a corporation is not "profit above all else". Corporations are also supposed to operate in a manner that benefits society. We used to actually strip corporations of their charters when they failed their social responsibility. The responsibility to shareholders depends a lot on the charter, but in general, it's to run the company in a profitable and sustainable manner. Again, it's not "make the most money possible no matter what". If that were the case, then there would be no corporations engaging in anything but the highest-margin sorts of business. So there'd be no low-margin stuff like toilet paper.
autoexec 4y ago
Legislation being opposed by large corporations is becoming a decent indicator that passing the law will be beneficial for society and we'd all be better off enacting it.

gnarbarian 4y ago

I think things are moving in the opposite direction. tech has enabled heavier handed control over products Long after they are sold. often customers legally do not own the products they buy through IP law shenanigans amounting to legal machinations as bizarre as leasing a pair of tennis shoes for $120. you're free to throw them out but you may not use them in a way that reflects poorly on the brand.