4 ms·

I agree with a lot in this article. We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipp

I agree with a lot in this article. We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipping the costs of doing business to poorer countries where that cost is not as large simply because the poor are easier to exploit (e.g. kicking sustenance farmers off their land, dumping electronic waste, etc.). Global capitalism is devastating because it is about creating a world where the end result is everyone in subservience to a highly fragile infrastucture in return for immense short-term wealth for a few (big-tech employees are in this category). The size of business should be limited and corporations should be destroyed!

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
giantg2 3y ago
Sometimes that cost isn't exploitation but just taking advantage of lower cost of living - like hiring offshore devs. This still has negative impacts such as reducing domestic employment and even driving down domestic income. For example (which sometimes includes exploitation), it's easier to buy brand new shoes manufactured in a third world country and shipped halfway around the world than to find a shoe repair shop where a rebuild costs less than the new pair. Now that art is comparatively dead domestically.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > lower cost of living Lower standards of living, lower cost would be like the difference between a budget hotel and a 5 star at the beach, lower standards is vacationing in Iowa instead. You'll hear people say things like "culturally they like to live ten to a single room tin shack" but that wouldn't be the case if they had wealth. It's not a choice, they are just paid less and that is being used as a justification for continuing to do so.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    I don't think thats entirely true. Lets pick India. Do you really think the only reason the grandparents stay attached to their adult children is economic?
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Yes. All societies used to be like India is before they finished becoming industrialized. Ask young people in India today if they want to live with Grandma, more and more say no compared to a generation ago. The wealthier they get the more this will continue.
      - vouaobrasil 3y ago
        Exactly right, and this is how technology destroys communities. By one thread of one human needing another at a time.
      - gosub100 3y ago
        you could use that logic as to why daycare is better than parenting too: "get out of my way, you pesky family! you are getting in my way of making money - i.e. servicing the industrialist society".
  - giantg2 3y ago
    It's both. Price out a house of the same size and it will still be cheaper.
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Now do the same amenities in a house the same size. Same water quailty in the taps. Price in schools and other public utilities or the cost to obtain them on your own where not offered or high quality.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        Then why are ex-pats retiring in those places with a higher standard of living than they would have in the US? Why is there medical tourism to places like Thailand, where some of the hospitals have high percentages of US board certified physicians? Standard of living is an input for cost of living. You can go to a lower standard area and have above average quality of life for yourself because the competition is lower (you're effectively rich there). Sure, maybe you need an RO filter on your tap (there are places in the US where you may need this too), but even if the filter cost is the same, the water cost will generally be lower as would the instalation labor, etc.
brabel 3y ago
> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipping the costs of doing business to poorer countries where that cost is not as large simply because the poor are easier to exploit While I agree it may be necessary to limit the size of companies, I completely disagree with the reason you give. It's not about the poor being easier to exploit. It really is about optimising global networks. If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? To not allow that would be similar to not allowing free competition between workers in general unless you consider for some reason that the international market should not be free (which is becoming more and more popular recently, but with which I strongly disagree - developed countries were 100% in favour of free market only while they were far and away the biggest beneficiaries of such system... now that others can compete at the same level all of a sudden it's not a good thing anymore). How do you think areas where people get paid less will ever get higher salaries if you insist in making it harder for companies to provide jobs to those who live in such areas. It's true that this may eventually go both ways: i.e. the people in lower cost areas will start getting paid more while the people in the higher cost areas will start getting paid less. Do you find that is less just? If so, why? I find that it's much better to raise the salaries for people in lower paid areas because those people can finally raise to a decent level, while those in higher paid areas will just be a little bit less able to keep their luxuries while still keeping most of their comforts. Where we agree is that if we allow this system to go on unencumbered, eventually only one place will produce everything (sounds familiar?), only one company will dominate each area of business, and so on. And that is antagonistic to capitalism, and coincidentally, to the wellbeing of workers and consumers as well.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  > If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? The reason why we disagree is because I disagree with free competition on a global scale, and in turn disagree with economic efficiency as a good thing in absolute terms: there is a limit, past which if we become too efficient, it implies too great an abuse of the commons. I don't think we should have global competition for programmers: we should be more locally self-sufficient and face the consequences of our actions in our own backyard. If Eastern European programmers are better, well that is all well and good, but then that IMPLIES that people in your HOME country are NOT becoming programmers, and eventually this chain has to end somewhere, likely with SHIPPING something overseas, which in turn is unsustainable. At some point, this is likely to result in abuse of the common good (biosphere), much more so than if we stayed local. Think about it economically: the only reason why you can even PAY eastern europeans is because your currency can be exchanged for theirs, which means that they probably want some physical product of yours.
_heimdall 3y ago
> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies We could get really far by simply removing legal and political protections that make massive companies possible. If companies and their leadership could actually be held accountable by employees and consumers, they would be much more hesitant to continue to grow and chase profits indefinitely. Similarly removing tax loop holes would also likely help. Massive companies get to a scale where they can play ridiculous tax games that just aren't possible on a smaller scale.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Exactly right. And we also need ways to combat the fact that large businesses have the money to hire a basketball team of top-notch lawyers that can crush much of their legal opposition. Basically, large companies get to a point where they are not competitive and use loopholes and other devious strategies to their advantage.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    I'd actually argue that the fact that more expensive lawyers gives you a tangible, large advantage in the court room is an indication that our legal system is fundamentally broken. Rather than trying to fix one symptom of that, corporate legal power, we should fix the legal system itself.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      No, we should fix both. Even without that, large corporations might still exist with other means and we should dismantle them.
      - _heimdall 3y ago
        Oh sure, I actually meant that as a continuation of my earlier comment. We should remove legal and tax protections for companies, making large companies much less likely, and we should separately fix the fundamental problems of our legal system that corporations, among others, take advantage of today.
xvilka 3y ago
In some industries companies have to be big to make economical sense. Shipping, logistics, electronics, mining. Anything that requires an immense capital to create and maintain/operate.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

giantg2 3y ago

Sometimes that cost isn't exploitation but just taking advantage of lower cost of living - like hiring offshore devs. This still has negative impacts such as reducing domestic employment and even driving down domestic income. For example (which sometimes includes exploitation), it's easier to buy brand new shoes manufactured in a third world country and shipped halfway around the world than to find a shoe repair shop where a rebuild costs less than the new pair. Now that art is comparatively dead domestically.

willcipriano 3y ago
> lower cost of living Lower standards of living, lower cost would be like the difference between a budget hotel and a 5 star at the beach, lower standards is vacationing in Iowa instead. You'll hear people say things like "culturally they like to live ten to a single room tin shack" but that wouldn't be the case if they had wealth. It's not a choice, they are just paid less and that is being used as a justification for continuing to do so.
- gosub100 3y ago
  I don't think thats entirely true. Lets pick India. Do you really think the only reason the grandparents stay attached to their adult children is economic?
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Yes. All societies used to be like India is before they finished becoming industrialized. Ask young people in India today if they want to live with Grandma, more and more say no compared to a generation ago. The wealthier they get the more this will continue.
    - vouaobrasil 3y ago
      Exactly right, and this is how technology destroys communities. By one thread of one human needing another at a time.
    - gosub100 3y ago
      you could use that logic as to why daycare is better than parenting too: "get out of my way, you pesky family! you are getting in my way of making money - i.e. servicing the industrialist society".
- giantg2 3y ago
  It's both. Price out a house of the same size and it will still be cheaper.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Now do the same amenities in a house the same size. Same water quailty in the taps. Price in schools and other public utilities or the cost to obtain them on your own where not offered or high quality.
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Then why are ex-pats retiring in those places with a higher standard of living than they would have in the US? Why is there medical tourism to places like Thailand, where some of the hospitals have high percentages of US board certified physicians? Standard of living is an input for cost of living. You can go to a lower standard area and have above average quality of life for yourself because the competition is lower (you're effectively rich there). Sure, maybe you need an RO filter on your tap (there are places in the US where you may need this too), but even if the filter cost is the same, the water cost will generally be lower as would the instalation labor, etc.

brabel 3y ago

> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipping the costs of doing business to poorer countries where that cost is not as large simply because the poor are easier to exploit While I agree it may be necessary to limit the size of companies, I completely disagree with the reason you give. It's not about the poor being easier to exploit. It really is about optimising global networks. If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? To not allow that would be similar to not allowing free competition between workers in general unless you consider for some reason that the international market should not be free (which is becoming more and more popular recently, but with which I strongly disagree - developed countries were 100% in favour of free market only while they were far and away the biggest beneficiaries of such system... now that others can compete at the same level all of a sudden it's not a good thing anymore). How do you think areas where people get paid less will ever get higher salaries if you insist in making it harder for companies to provide jobs to those who live in such areas. It's true that this may eventually go both ways: i.e. the people in lower cost areas will start getting paid more while the people in the higher cost areas will start getting paid less. Do you find that is less just? If so, why? I find that it's much better to raise the salaries for people in lower paid areas because those people can finally raise to a decent level, while those in higher paid areas will just be a little bit less able to keep their luxuries while still keeping most of their comforts. Where we agree is that if we allow this system to go on unencumbered, eventually only one place will produce everything (sounds familiar?), only one company will dominate each area of business, and so on. And that is antagonistic to capitalism, and coincidentally, to the wellbeing of workers and consumers as well.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
> If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? The reason why we disagree is because I disagree with free competition on a global scale, and in turn disagree with economic efficiency as a good thing in absolute terms: there is a limit, past which if we become too efficient, it implies too great an abuse of the commons. I don't think we should have global competition for programmers: we should be more locally self-sufficient and face the consequences of our actions in our own backyard. If Eastern European programmers are better, well that is all well and good, but then that IMPLIES that people in your HOME country are NOT becoming programmers, and eventually this chain has to end somewhere, likely with SHIPPING something overseas, which in turn is unsustainable. At some point, this is likely to result in abuse of the common good (biosphere), much more so than if we stayed local. Think about it economically: the only reason why you can even PAY eastern europeans is because your currency can be exchanged for theirs, which means that they probably want some physical product of yours.

_heimdall 3y ago

> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies We could get really far by simply removing legal and political protections that make massive companies possible. If companies and their leadership could actually be held accountable by employees and consumers, they would be much more hesitant to continue to grow and chase profits indefinitely. Similarly removing tax loop holes would also likely help. Massive companies get to a scale where they can play ridiculous tax games that just aren't possible on a smaller scale.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Exactly right. And we also need ways to combat the fact that large businesses have the money to hire a basketball team of top-notch lawyers that can crush much of their legal opposition. Basically, large companies get to a point where they are not competitive and use loopholes and other devious strategies to their advantage.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  I'd actually argue that the fact that more expensive lawyers gives you a tangible, large advantage in the court room is an indication that our legal system is fundamentally broken. Rather than trying to fix one symptom of that, corporate legal power, we should fix the legal system itself.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    No, we should fix both. Even without that, large corporations might still exist with other means and we should dismantle them.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      Oh sure, I actually meant that as a continuation of my earlier comment. We should remove legal and tax protections for companies, making large companies much less likely, and we should separately fix the fundamental problems of our legal system that corporations, among others, take advantage of today.

xvilka 3y ago

In some industries companies have to be big to make economical sense. Shipping, logistics, electronics, mining. Anything that requires an immense capital to create and maintain/operate.