3 ms·

So you think government can prove morality, but markets cannot? If you don't think government is a marketplace where the currency is political capital, then you

So you think government can prove morality, but markets cannot? If you don't think government is a marketplace where the currency is political capital, then you have a naive view of how governments work. Also, I don't believe the EU is a direct democracy, so the representative morality is lossy. Have you never disagreed with a decision made by a politician you voted for? I'm saying that customers decide whether or not to buy from Apple based on whether they resonate with them from a moral standpoint, at least as part of their decision to purchase their products. And I said Apple's CEO is accountable to their customers, not that they represent them. Yes, they're also accountable to shareholders, as your sibling comment points out. But if the company screws up enough to elicit a popular boycott, you can bet the reason shareholders will be exercising that accountability is due to the actions of the customer base.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Yes, a democratic government represents the people, and thus their moral stance. A market sells stuff. There's really no relationship between the two nouns. No reason to compare them. You might as well ask, "So the people can decide what's moral, but a jar of pickles can't?" Yes, that's correct. A jar of pickles is technically a market, so this analogy applies particularly well. > I'm saying that customers decide whether or not to buy from Apple based on whether they resonate with them from a moral standpoint I fully believe that you might do that yourself. There's no evidence everyone else does, or even that a majority do. Especially since most people aren't informed of working conditions involved in manufacturing Apple products (or indeed, many others' products). It's just not believable that everyone thinks that buying a product = agreeing with every single moral stance made by the person currently running the company. And what if he changed his mind tomorrow? Would he offer a full refund to everybody who asked for one? > And I said Apple's CEO is accountable to their customers, not that they represent them. He's not accountable to them, only to the board*, but we're discussing representation - that is, speaking on behalf of a people, according to those people, not you or I or the speaker individually. If you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation, and I returned us to the topic of representation, you're welcome :) [*]: Your example illustrates this: a complex chain of accountability from CEO to Corporation and BoD to Corporation and Corporation to shareholders is required for any action to happen. Being accountable to customers means customers can decide to fire him _directly_.
- mckn1ght 3y ago
  > you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation Because they are interrelated concepts. Without accountability you can’t be trusted to faithfully represent someone. “Representation” without accountability is autocracy. Also, chill with the condescension.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    You are right, they may relate, and thus can be easy to confuse for each other when one is being discussed. So we have to be extra careful when bringing one up in a discussion about the other. In this case, though, the CEO is not accountable to customers, and the CEO does not represent customers, so not too confusing. He is accountable to the BoD (nobody else can fire him) and represents the corporation. The interests of other parties, including customers, are secondary to, and when opposed lose to, the interests of the corporation.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

Yes, a democratic government represents the people, and thus their moral stance. A market sells stuff. There's really no relationship between the two nouns. No reason to compare them. You might as well ask, "So the people can decide what's moral, but a jar of pickles can't?" Yes, that's correct. A jar of pickles is technically a market, so this analogy applies particularly well. > I'm saying that customers decide whether or not to buy from Apple based on whether they resonate with them from a moral standpoint I fully believe that you might do that yourself. There's no evidence everyone else does, or even that a majority do. Especially since most people aren't informed of working conditions involved in manufacturing Apple products (or indeed, many others' products). It's just not believable that everyone thinks that buying a product = agreeing with every single moral stance made by the person currently running the company. And what if he changed his mind tomorrow? Would he offer a full refund to everybody who asked for one? > And I said Apple's CEO is accountable to their customers, not that they represent them. He's not accountable to them, only to the board*, but we're discussing representation - that is, speaking on behalf of a people, according to those people, not you or I or the speaker individually. If you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation, and I returned us to the topic of representation, you're welcome :) [*]: Your example illustrates this: a complex chain of accountability from CEO to Corporation and BoD to Corporation and Corporation to shareholders is required for any action to happen. Being accountable to customers means customers can decide to fire him _directly_.

mckn1ght 3y ago
> you mentioned accountability while we were on the topic of representation Because they are interrelated concepts. Without accountability you can’t be trusted to faithfully represent someone. “Representation” without accountability is autocracy. Also, chill with the condescension.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  You are right, they may relate, and thus can be easy to confuse for each other when one is being discussed. So we have to be extra careful when bringing one up in a discussion about the other. In this case, though, the CEO is not accountable to customers, and the CEO does not represent customers, so not too confusing. He is accountable to the BoD (nobody else can fire him) and represents the corporation. The interests of other parties, including customers, are secondary to, and when opposed lose to, the interests of the corporation.