5 ms·

> We have far too many laws as it is If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that

by rtkwe 2y ago

> We have far too many laws as it is If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that's far from the case and we have endless examples of what happens the moment they find a way to rack up massive short term profits because a regulation has been loosened because "well we haven't had that kind of failure in decades!". We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws (and they're redoing it now under the toothless version we've been gifted by the courts). It's all bad for anyone except the owners and bosses.

pdonis 2y ago
> If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term. The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do. > We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments. > We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services. In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. You clearly have not studied the history.

by rtkwe 2y ago

pdonis 2y ago

> If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term. The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do. > We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments. > We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services. In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.

cyberax 2y ago
> Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. You clearly have not studied the history.