8 ms·

As soon as I read this, I thought of TurboTax and its mission to preserve the crappy system of filing US taxes so that its software can continue to profit.

by mizzao 3y ago

bdw5204 3y ago
My first thought was of the 2 major US political parties and their mission of promising things they have no intention of ever doing to get votes so they can win elections, take away more of our freedoms and redistribute more wealth from the many to the few. TurboTax is also a great example though.
- wesselbindt 3y ago
  This is quite independent of the US. The state functions purely to protect the interests of the dominant class. In the US, the dominant class happens to be capital owners, but that's true in most of the world these days.
  - jjjjj55555 3y ago
    I tend to agree, but then I look at Europe and I say, who is the ruling class here? In the US it's obvious that corporations run everything, but that doesn't seem to be the case in western Europe.
    - cheschire 3y ago
      That's because western europe is the ruling class.
      - jjjjj55555 3y ago
        All of the people of western Europe are the ruling class? LOL I doubt any of them feel that way. What are they ruling exactly?
    - smallmancontrov 3y ago
      Just because they occasionally legislate USB-C chargers doesn't make them bastions of socialism, lol.
      - jjjjj55555 3y ago
        I know they're not socialist, but they're also not clearly dominated by giant corporations the way the US is. Who is the ruling class then?
        smallmancontrov 3y ago
        Means & motive are still largely governed by whether you own things for a living or work for a living. The pay to exist vs get paid to exist dynamic is alive and well over there and the debates are all quite familiar. After all they invented the rules and we just copy-pasted them with a few small modifications. The ownership class just isn't as dominant as it is in the US at the moment, for better and for worse.
      - bdw5204 3y ago
        Is it possible that they pass USB-C charging and data privacy laws in Europe because the companies affected are primarily American companies not European companies? Likewise, I imagine they pass anti-fossil fuel laws because there aren't really any major fossil fuel producing countries in Europe besides Russia which is both a pariah and the continent's gas station.
        lentil_soup 3y ago
        Not countries producing but there's huge oil companies based in Europe (BP, Shell, Total) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_...
    - psychoslave 3y ago
      I won't say this is a good representation of every european country, but in France, basically two bilionary own all mainstream private press media, the rich class basically built Macron to push their agenda, and most important laws anyway come from Europe transpositions where only those that can build a perpetual lobby service can push a topic into a directive. So yes obviously Europe is a paradise of direct democracy where every citizen bloom thanks to a social structure made to help each of them thrive and reach the best version of themselves acting everyday for an harmonious society free of any anxiety about future that promise only bright shiny days for the masses and their children.
  - kubanczyk 3y ago
    >> the 2 major US political parties and their mission of promising things they have no intention of ever doing > This is quite independent of the US. Happens less in electoral systems where the 2nd party can become 3rd overnight. Politics become less rigid.
    - philwelch 3y ago
      Multiparty systems can become completely deadlocked as well. Belgium has had complete deadlocks because nobody can form a coalition, Israel had five elections in three years for similar reasons, Britain was effectively deadlocked under Theresa May, and Canada has had outright minority governments. I also wouldn’t describe US politics as “rigid” just because we have the same two parties, because each party has different factions and some of the most powerful factions were either marginal or completely nonexistent a couple decades ago.
      - School-Cotton 3y ago
        The biggest problem with the U.S. system isn’t that there are only two parties (that’s a problem, just not the biggest one). It’s that both parties need to agree in order to pass anything (due to the senate filibuster), which as far as I know is unique among democracies.
        themoonisachees 3y ago
        I'm not saying that to say that the us is any better, but simply for context for what happens when you don't need all the parties to approve: France effectively has that by way of the infamous 49.3. the majority party coalition can effectively force all others to accept a law, without ever presenting it for a vote. The caveat is that the other parties can start a vote of no confidence and dissolve the government with a simple majority, but in reality this never happens because dissolving the government over [pension reform, the budget, insert issue here] is disproportionate. The current government's lack of caring about their voter base because of the Overton windows shifting to the right has obviously aggravated this.
        3y ago
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    > The state functions purely ... any sentence that starts this way is just walking straight into its own falsity. No human system as complex as "the state" ever functions "purely" to do anything. Instead, it's a venue in which different interests and power levels sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate, sometimes achieving goals and often not.
- electrondood 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - kayisa6325 3y ago
    Yes yes and the other is the saviour of the democracy and humanity, while preserving equity. Either you're new on this planet or just lying to yourself - all parties are marching against same goal, they just keep the distraction going so people are interally conflicted instead of paying attention.
    - mikepurvis 3y ago
      Not really a helpful comment in either content or tone. Biden and Trump are marketedly different in both major policies and governing competence, and it doesn't help the discourse to say that they're just "marching against the same goal."
      - westhanover 3y ago
        Neither is your comment. If you polled Americans I think more would say both parties are full of shit than would take one parties line like you are.
    - catlifeonmars 3y ago
      > if you squint, maybe they're kinda the same. > all parties are marching against same goal Clearly you’re both in agreement.
- mgfist 3y ago
  Biden passed the most comprehensive climate law in US history. The most unbelievable part is that the law was nearly unchanged from what was written by climate experts. Usually bills start out looking good, then get frankensteined by the hundreds of stakeholders that want to cram their shit into it. For once, we got a pretty clean bill that will actually do good (based on the climate experts I've read). Form your own opinions, but I had to mention real action that happened.
empath-nirvana 3y ago
I think the more archetypal example is that _treating_ a disease is a lot more profitable than _curing_ a disease -- would the Epipen manufacturer ever develop and market a allergy _vaccine_ that cured an allergy with a one time shot?
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  This is one reason it's essential to have a free enterprise system, where anyone can take on such problems.
  - TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
    Why would this happen when it's more profitable not to?
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      How do you make profit not doing something? Right now I'm not doing billions of things, and don't see a cent is coming in!
  - sitkack 3y ago
    Or a system that removes profit from the equation. From the article, I don't think any one bureaucratic system is immune from the effect. In the tech sector, we see many examples of the disruptor opening a temporary wedge to either get acquired by the dominant player or becoming the new hegemonist.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      A system where it's not profitable to solve problems won't do much problem solving.
      - owisd 3y ago
        This is just taking the rational consumer model, forgetting it's just a model and treating it as a fact of life, and then inventing corollaries from it. Plenty of people find intrinsic value in solving problems without there needing to be a profit. See, e.g. Open Source Software, The Apollo Program, Academia, the BBC.
pydry 3y ago
Or the carbon/nuclear industries' PR campaigns to foment support to maintain their subsidies and keep them away from solar + wind.
jjjjj55555 3y ago
[flagged]
- lapcat 3y ago
  > What comes to my mind are labor unions, the NAACP,as well as feminists and other identity groups. > They seem to follow a pattern of being really important for their time and place, but after winning the important, landmark victories, they stick around. They stick around because union busting corporations, racists, and sexists don't just magically disappear or give up after they lose a battle.
  - jjjjj55555 3y ago
    If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right? They used to make the history books with their accomplishments. What have they done for you lately?
    - lapcat 3y ago
      > If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right? Wrong. By what magic do you think their opponents suddenly disappear or give up? Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long". Progess is slow and subject to setbacks. > They used to make the history books with their accomplishments. Some areas of the country now want to ban the teaching of that history. Forget racism and sexism for a moment: do you seriously think that the temporary existence of labor unions makes profit-maximizing corporations give up and give in to all of labor's demand for eternity, even after labor unions dissolved?
      - jjjjj55555 3y ago
        Do you feel the wars on drugs and terror will ever be won? I don't. I look at your wars the same way. They'll drag on and on. Some people will get rich and powerful, but the people on whose behalf you're supposedly fighting don't really care about any of it. They'd much rather have affordable healthcare and housing.
gadders 3y ago
Charities too.
jacobsimon 3y ago
There’s a lot of businesses like this that rely on “complexity” or “fragmentation” of existing systems, particularly in the US where laws and standards differ across all states. Another example is a business like Segment—-they profit off of the complexity and incompatibility of other companies’ products, and would likely oppose or delay an open standard.
- calvinmorrison 3y ago
  Avalara is another one
JackFr 3y ago
Healthcare in the United States. The insurers have somehow created which ensures their survival at a real cost. Attempts to rationalize the system have failed because of the focus on getting everyone health insurance rather than health care (admittedly among other reasons).
- Aurornis 3y ago
  It doesn’t help that politicians continue to propose dead-in-the-water alternatives. The last round of “Medicare for All” included a lot of provisions that were very unpopular when you asked people about them directly, such as taking away people’s existing private insurance. This a common theme in politics: Actually solving the problem might remove enthusiasm for your candidate or party, so instead they propose things with no realistic chance of passing. Their business is being front and center in public discourse, not quietly fixing things. EDIT: I’m getting downvoted because a comment below is denying this part of the bill, so I’m adding the exact text here: > SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for— (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act. The comment below is incorrect. The bill would have made people’s existing insurance plans illegal to offer.
  - jerojero 3y ago
    No one is going to get elected for solving a problem everyone today is going to be dead to see the results of. Although we all might agree that this is necessary, people usually tend to vote for people who promise "real" solutions. As in, short term solutions to problems we've been carrying for decades (which obviously requires policies that also take decades to cement).
  - bgoggin 3y ago
    This is not correct. There was no prohibition on private insurance. Rather, all would have been required to participate in the public plan to spread the risk. That's the only way it could work. If someone wanted to also pay for a private plan, that was allowed.
michtzik 3y ago
That's literally the first example in TFA.
- mizzao 3y ago
  Teach for America?
  - ric2b 3y ago
    The Friendly Article
Chinjut 3y ago
This is in fact the first example in the article.
userabchn 3y ago
Indeed, however at least TurboTax has competition so that the experience, while unnecessarily complicated, is not as unpleasant as it could be. I have recently been thinking about this as I have just filed my taxes, which, in the country I am living in, can be done only using the government's website. This website is dreadful. It hasn't changed since the early 2000s at the latest, provides no help or guidance, contains typos, and even requires that you manually copy a number from one page to the next. I also don't think the tax system is noticeably easier than the one in the USA (where I used to live) even though there is no direct analogue of TurboTax lobbying for complexity (although there probably are still accountant lobby groups).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

As soon as I read this, I thought of TurboTax and its mission to preserve the crappy system of filing US taxes so that its software can continue to profit.

by mizzao 3y ago

As soon as I read this, I thought of TurboTax and its mission to preserve the crappy system of filing US taxes so that its software can continue to profit.

bdw5204 3y ago

My first thought was of the 2 major US political parties and their mission of promising things they have no intention of ever doing to get votes so they can win elections, take away more of our freedoms and redistribute more wealth from the many to the few. TurboTax is also a great example though.

wesselbindt 3y ago
This is quite independent of the US. The state functions purely to protect the interests of the dominant class. In the US, the dominant class happens to be capital owners, but that's true in most of the world these days.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  I tend to agree, but then I look at Europe and I say, who is the ruling class here? In the US it's obvious that corporations run everything, but that doesn't seem to be the case in western Europe.
  - cheschire 3y ago
    That's because western europe is the ruling class.
    - jjjjj55555 3y ago
      All of the people of western Europe are the ruling class? LOL I doubt any of them feel that way. What are they ruling exactly?
  - smallmancontrov 3y ago
    Just because they occasionally legislate USB-C chargers doesn't make them bastions of socialism, lol.
    - jjjjj55555 3y ago
      I know they're not socialist, but they're also not clearly dominated by giant corporations the way the US is. Who is the ruling class then?
      - smallmancontrov 3y ago
        Means & motive are still largely governed by whether you own things for a living or work for a living. The pay to exist vs get paid to exist dynamic is alive and well over there and the debates are all quite familiar. After all they invented the rules and we just copy-pasted them with a few small modifications. The ownership class just isn't as dominant as it is in the US at the moment, for better and for worse.
    - bdw5204 3y ago
      Is it possible that they pass USB-C charging and data privacy laws in Europe because the companies affected are primarily American companies not European companies? Likewise, I imagine they pass anti-fossil fuel laws because there aren't really any major fossil fuel producing countries in Europe besides Russia which is both a pariah and the continent's gas station.
      - lentil_soup 3y ago
        Not countries producing but there's huge oil companies based in Europe (BP, Shell, Total) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_companies_by_revenue https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_oil_and_gas_...
  - psychoslave 3y ago
    I won't say this is a good representation of every european country, but in France, basically two bilionary own all mainstream private press media, the rich class basically built Macron to push their agenda, and most important laws anyway come from Europe transpositions where only those that can build a perpetual lobby service can push a topic into a directive. So yes obviously Europe is a paradise of direct democracy where every citizen bloom thanks to a social structure made to help each of them thrive and reach the best version of themselves acting everyday for an harmonious society free of any anxiety about future that promise only bright shiny days for the masses and their children.
- kubanczyk 3y ago
  >> the 2 major US political parties and their mission of promising things they have no intention of ever doing > This is quite independent of the US. Happens less in electoral systems where the 2nd party can become 3rd overnight. Politics become less rigid.
  - philwelch 3y ago
    Multiparty systems can become completely deadlocked as well. Belgium has had complete deadlocks because nobody can form a coalition, Israel had five elections in three years for similar reasons, Britain was effectively deadlocked under Theresa May, and Canada has had outright minority governments. I also wouldn’t describe US politics as “rigid” just because we have the same two parties, because each party has different factions and some of the most powerful factions were either marginal or completely nonexistent a couple decades ago.
    - School-Cotton 3y ago
      The biggest problem with the U.S. system isn’t that there are only two parties (that’s a problem, just not the biggest one). It’s that both parties need to agree in order to pass anything (due to the senate filibuster), which as far as I know is unique among democracies.
      - themoonisachees 3y ago
        I'm not saying that to say that the us is any better, but simply for context for what happens when you don't need all the parties to approve: France effectively has that by way of the infamous 49.3. the majority party coalition can effectively force all others to accept a law, without ever presenting it for a vote. The caveat is that the other parties can start a vote of no confidence and dissolve the government with a simple majority, but in reality this never happens because dissolving the government over [pension reform, the budget, insert issue here] is disproportionate. The current government's lack of caring about their voter base because of the Overton windows shifting to the right has obviously aggravated this.
      - 3y ago
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  > The state functions purely ... any sentence that starts this way is just walking straight into its own falsity. No human system as complex as "the state" ever functions "purely" to do anything. Instead, it's a venue in which different interests and power levels sometimes compete and sometimes cooperate, sometimes achieving goals and often not.
electrondood 3y ago
[flagged]
- kayisa6325 3y ago
  Yes yes and the other is the saviour of the democracy and humanity, while preserving equity. Either you're new on this planet or just lying to yourself - all parties are marching against same goal, they just keep the distraction going so people are interally conflicted instead of paying attention.
  - mikepurvis 3y ago
    Not really a helpful comment in either content or tone. Biden and Trump are marketedly different in both major policies and governing competence, and it doesn't help the discourse to say that they're just "marching against the same goal."
    - westhanover 3y ago
      Neither is your comment. If you polled Americans I think more would say both parties are full of shit than would take one parties line like you are.
  - catlifeonmars 3y ago
    > if you squint, maybe they're kinda the same. > all parties are marching against same goal Clearly you’re both in agreement.
mgfist 3y ago
Biden passed the most comprehensive climate law in US history. The most unbelievable part is that the law was nearly unchanged from what was written by climate experts. Usually bills start out looking good, then get frankensteined by the hundreds of stakeholders that want to cram their shit into it. For once, we got a pretty clean bill that will actually do good (based on the climate experts I've read). Form your own opinions, but I had to mention real action that happened.

empath-nirvana 3y ago

I think the more archetypal example is that _treating_ a disease is a lot more profitable than _curing_ a disease -- would the Epipen manufacturer ever develop and market a allergy _vaccine_ that cured an allergy with a one time shot?

BurningFrog 3y ago
This is one reason it's essential to have a free enterprise system, where anyone can take on such problems.
- TheOtherHobbes 3y ago
  Why would this happen when it's more profitable not to?
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    How do you make profit not doing something? Right now I'm not doing billions of things, and don't see a cent is coming in!
- sitkack 3y ago
  Or a system that removes profit from the equation. From the article, I don't think any one bureaucratic system is immune from the effect. In the tech sector, we see many examples of the disruptor opening a temporary wedge to either get acquired by the dominant player or becoming the new hegemonist.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    A system where it's not profitable to solve problems won't do much problem solving.
    - owisd 3y ago
      This is just taking the rational consumer model, forgetting it's just a model and treating it as a fact of life, and then inventing corollaries from it. Plenty of people find intrinsic value in solving problems without there needing to be a profit. See, e.g. Open Source Software, The Apollo Program, Academia, the BBC.

pydry 3y ago

Or the carbon/nuclear industries' PR campaigns to foment support to maintain their subsidies and keep them away from solar + wind.

jjjjj55555 3y ago

[flagged]

lapcat 3y ago
> What comes to my mind are labor unions, the NAACP,as well as feminists and other identity groups. > They seem to follow a pattern of being really important for their time and place, but after winning the important, landmark victories, they stick around. They stick around because union busting corporations, racists, and sexists don't just magically disappear or give up after they lose a battle.
- jjjjj55555 3y ago
  If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right? They used to make the history books with their accomplishments. What have they done for you lately?
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > If these groups were doing their job, those bad guys you mentioned should be gone by now, right? Wrong. By what magic do you think their opponents suddenly disappear or give up? Martin Luther King said, "the arc of the moral universe is long". Progess is slow and subject to setbacks. > They used to make the history books with their accomplishments. Some areas of the country now want to ban the teaching of that history. Forget racism and sexism for a moment: do you seriously think that the temporary existence of labor unions makes profit-maximizing corporations give up and give in to all of labor's demand for eternity, even after labor unions dissolved?
    - jjjjj55555 3y ago
      Do you feel the wars on drugs and terror will ever be won? I don't. I look at your wars the same way. They'll drag on and on. Some people will get rich and powerful, but the people on whose behalf you're supposedly fighting don't really care about any of it. They'd much rather have affordable healthcare and housing.

gadders 3y ago

Charities too.

jacobsimon 3y ago

There’s a lot of businesses like this that rely on “complexity” or “fragmentation” of existing systems, particularly in the US where laws and standards differ across all states. Another example is a business like Segment—-they profit off of the complexity and incompatibility of other companies’ products, and would likely oppose or delay an open standard.

calvinmorrison 3y ago
Avalara is another one

JackFr 3y ago

Healthcare in the United States. The insurers have somehow created which ensures their survival at a real cost. Attempts to rationalize the system have failed because of the focus on getting everyone health insurance rather than health care (admittedly among other reasons).

Aurornis 3y ago
It doesn’t help that politicians continue to propose dead-in-the-water alternatives. The last round of “Medicare for All” included a lot of provisions that were very unpopular when you asked people about them directly, such as taking away people’s existing private insurance. This a common theme in politics: Actually solving the problem might remove enthusiasm for your candidate or party, so instead they propose things with no realistic chance of passing. Their business is being front and center in public discourse, not quietly fixing things. EDIT: I’m getting downvoted because a comment below is denying this part of the bill, so I’m adding the exact text here: > SEC. 107. PROHIBITION AGAINST DUPLICATING COVERAGE. (a) IN GENERAL.—Beginning on the effective date described in section 106(a), it shall be unlawful for— (1) a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act; or (2) an employer to provide benefits for an employee, former employee, or the dependents of an employee or former employee that duplicate the benefits provided under this Act. The comment below is incorrect. The bill would have made people’s existing insurance plans illegal to offer.
- jerojero 3y ago
  No one is going to get elected for solving a problem everyone today is going to be dead to see the results of. Although we all might agree that this is necessary, people usually tend to vote for people who promise "real" solutions. As in, short term solutions to problems we've been carrying for decades (which obviously requires policies that also take decades to cement).
- bgoggin 3y ago
  This is not correct. There was no prohibition on private insurance. Rather, all would have been required to participate in the public plan to spread the risk. That's the only way it could work. If someone wanted to also pay for a private plan, that was allowed.

michtzik 3y ago

That's literally the first example in TFA.

mizzao 3y ago
Teach for America?
- ric2b 3y ago
  The Friendly Article

Chinjut 3y ago

This is in fact the first example in the article.

userabchn 3y ago

Indeed, however at least TurboTax has competition so that the experience, while unnecessarily complicated, is not as unpleasant as it could be. I have recently been thinking about this as I have just filed my taxes, which, in the country I am living in, can be done only using the government's website. This website is dreadful. It hasn't changed since the early 2000s at the latest, provides no help or guidance, contains typos, and even requires that you manually copy a number from one page to the next. I also don't think the tax system is noticeably easier than the one in the USA (where I used to live) even though there is no direct analogue of TurboTax lobbying for complexity (although there probably are still accountant lobby groups).

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]