4 ms·

> I always find it interesting That's not interesting. That's not understanding capitalism. It's all about Incentives. The idea that business leaders can be e

by nabla9 2y ago

> I always find it interesting That's not interesting. That's not understanding capitalism. It's all about Incentives. The idea that business leaders can be ever considered genuine political or cultural voice or actor is the problem. Silicon Valley and hacker culture has created an atmosphere of business politicians and for some reason hackers take them seriously and don't laugh at their faces. The talk is just empty PR. Somehow smart people working for OpenAI, Google, keep eating it. Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. They might work in the background, but never directly. There is a good reason for that.

fallingknife 2y ago
If I have the choice of people from my industry or people not from my industry why would I ever choose the latter?
- kevingadd 2y ago
  Because you know the people from your industry well enough to hate their guts? :)
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    It doesn't matter who I like. I am not in any type of personal relationship with these people, so it makes no sense to "like" or "hate" them anyway. It matters whose incentives are aligned with mine. It's also not smart to assume you would like someone else better just because you don't know them.
    - layer8 2y ago
      People can easily disagree even when their incentives align. Hopefully we aren’t beings who have to blindly submit to whatever incentives are out there, or assume the same of other people.
- nabla9 2y ago
  You can choose people AND understand that they care only about money and not take their political talk seriously.
peutetre 2y ago
> Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. Traditionally business people have always done that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici
- nabla9 2y ago
  I did not speak against using money to get political power and benefit oneself. This was about propaganda of painting it as being somehow pro-social and criticism of those who believe it.
sofixa 2y ago
> The idea that business leaders can be ever considered genuine political or cultural voice or actor is the problem. Silicon Valley and hacker culture has created an atmosphere of business politicians and for some reason hackers take them seriously and don't laugh at their faces. > Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. They might work in the background, but never directly. There is a good reason for that. What is "traditional" for you? East India Company and the VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) conquering lands and colonising people, and directing foreign and military policy for centuries traditional enough? Stabdard Oil's Rockefeller influenced politics aplently. William Randolph Hearst was the son of a Senator, businessman, newspaper publisher and politician who was among the main causes for a war for colonies. The Dole Company, United Fruit company, Standard Fruit company literally toppled governments and operated death squads, and often had enough influence to get the US marines involved ("War is a Racket" by a Marine general who took part in the banana wars describes this nicely). JFK's father was a businessman who got into politics for his and his family's interests. In Russia, oligarchs are the ruling class and are politics, and have been for the past 30 years. In the US, you have multiple businesspeople and very rich people in the upcomming cabinet. South Korea is sometimes jokingly referred to as the Republic of Samsung due to the outsized influence Samsung have on their GDP (22%), with ramifications such as their high level execs getting pardoned of crimes such as bribery of public officials due to the impact it would have on the company and country. Business has always tried to influence politics in its favour, which often escalated into branching put into politics, often directly.
- nabla9 2y ago
  I did not speak against using money to get political power. Your examples honest power plays. Using raw power to benefit themself. This was about propaganda and criticism of those who believe it.
  - lucianbr 2y ago
    The examples were not honest at the time. They only seem so to you through the lens of history. You think the banana companies plainly said "we want to change the government, kill any opposition if necessary, just to make more money"? That's just our view now. Because there's nothing more to be gained from clouding the issue. They made the money, time has passed, there's no way to reach back and change anything. At the time, they pretended they had other reasons, to get support from people who didn't understand the situation. Just like it happens now.
poisonborz 2y ago
The veil will come off now with the second Trump administration. Everyone knows what's coming, and CEOs already changed tone.
- rvnx 2y ago
  There is also this thing that is very specific to Silicon Valley parties, you may have some dirt on some VC partners or the other way around. This also affects the dynamics of the regular business, it's not right, nor fair, and outright disgusting, though sadly happening. Will the administration go to the point that they will investigate such ? I doubt it, it's too risky for the economy.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    People with something valuable to trade don't have dirt aired in public -- they just barter changing their behavior on certain matters into everything being kept quiet. Consequently, if anyone does have skeletons in their closet, they'll just suddenly decide to do things more favorable to those who could have power over them.
intended 2y ago
Disagree. Social ideals are fundamentally part of business for the majority of human existence. As someone else mentioned, the east india company most definitely had social goals baked into it. Socially agnostic ideals for firms is relatively recent, and entirely good for business. Perhaps from the “greed is good” days of laissez faire policy. The limits of those policies were found and society has learned a new tool to make its desires known - by being vocal customers.

by nabla9 2y ago

fallingknife 2y ago

If I have the choice of people from my industry or people not from my industry why would I ever choose the latter?

kevingadd 2y ago
Because you know the people from your industry well enough to hate their guts? :)
- fallingknife 2y ago
  It doesn't matter who I like. I am not in any type of personal relationship with these people, so it makes no sense to "like" or "hate" them anyway. It matters whose incentives are aligned with mine. It's also not smart to assume you would like someone else better just because you don't know them.
  - layer8 2y ago
    People can easily disagree even when their incentives align. Hopefully we aren’t beings who have to blindly submit to whatever incentives are out there, or assume the same of other people.
nabla9 2y ago
You can choose people AND understand that they care only about money and not take their political talk seriously.

peutetre 2y ago

> Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. Traditionally business people have always done that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici

nabla9 2y ago
I did not speak against using money to get political power and benefit oneself. This was about propaganda of painting it as being somehow pro-social and criticism of those who believe it.

sofixa 2y ago

> The idea that business leaders can be ever considered genuine political or cultural voice or actor is the problem. Silicon Valley and hacker culture has created an atmosphere of business politicians and for some reason hackers take them seriously and don't laugh at their faces. > Traditionally business people don't get into discussions of culture or politics directly. They might work in the background, but never directly. There is a good reason for that. What is "traditional" for you? East India Company and the VOC (Dutch East Indies Company) conquering lands and colonising people, and directing foreign and military policy for centuries traditional enough? Stabdard Oil's Rockefeller influenced politics aplently. William Randolph Hearst was the son of a Senator, businessman, newspaper publisher and politician who was among the main causes for a war for colonies. The Dole Company, United Fruit company, Standard Fruit company literally toppled governments and operated death squads, and often had enough influence to get the US marines involved ("War is a Racket" by a Marine general who took part in the banana wars describes this nicely). JFK's father was a businessman who got into politics for his and his family's interests. In Russia, oligarchs are the ruling class and are politics, and have been for the past 30 years. In the US, you have multiple businesspeople and very rich people in the upcomming cabinet. South Korea is sometimes jokingly referred to as the Republic of Samsung due to the outsized influence Samsung have on their GDP (22%), with ramifications such as their high level execs getting pardoned of crimes such as bribery of public officials due to the impact it would have on the company and country. Business has always tried to influence politics in its favour, which often escalated into branching put into politics, often directly.

nabla9 2y ago
I did not speak against using money to get political power. Your examples honest power plays. Using raw power to benefit themself. This was about propaganda and criticism of those who believe it.
- lucianbr 2y ago
  The examples were not honest at the time. They only seem so to you through the lens of history. You think the banana companies plainly said "we want to change the government, kill any opposition if necessary, just to make more money"? That's just our view now. Because there's nothing more to be gained from clouding the issue. They made the money, time has passed, there's no way to reach back and change anything. At the time, they pretended they had other reasons, to get support from people who didn't understand the situation. Just like it happens now.

poisonborz 2y ago

The veil will come off now with the second Trump administration. Everyone knows what's coming, and CEOs already changed tone.

rvnx 2y ago
There is also this thing that is very specific to Silicon Valley parties, you may have some dirt on some VC partners or the other way around. This also affects the dynamics of the regular business, it's not right, nor fair, and outright disgusting, though sadly happening. Will the administration go to the point that they will investigate such ? I doubt it, it's too risky for the economy.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  People with something valuable to trade don't have dirt aired in public -- they just barter changing their behavior on certain matters into everything being kept quiet. Consequently, if anyone does have skeletons in their closet, they'll just suddenly decide to do things more favorable to those who could have power over them.

intended 2y ago

Disagree. Social ideals are fundamentally part of business for the majority of human existence. As someone else mentioned, the east india company most definitely had social goals baked into it. Socially agnostic ideals for firms is relatively recent, and entirely good for business. Perhaps from the “greed is good” days of laissez faire policy. The limits of those policies were found and society has learned a new tool to make its desires known - by being vocal customers.