4 ms·

"But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily." All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. You

"But the US has consistently been far too passive and accepts greedy companies far too readily." All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Your point that monopolies and oligopolies need to be crushed is very valid though. I wish more mergers were rejected in the first place. Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though.

HarryHirsch 2y ago
Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though That's an assertion, not a statement of fact. Pricing in natural monopolies is a mature subject, and public utilities have been a thing for over 100 years. Also, pricing for medical procedures is regulated in Europe, and it works extremely well.
- ajmurmann 2y ago
  Yes, it's preferably over allowing a monopoly to set prices. However, wherever possible you should break up the monopoly or prevent it on the first place. Of course there are conditions where that's very hard and you mention some of them. Setting prices where you could just have a functioning market has historically been well proven to lead to disaster. Look at any communist country. The GDR ended up allowing luxury stores that were not price bound and they were a huge hit for a reason.
- aianus 2y ago
  The wait time for medical procedures is extremely long in places with price caps. It does not work “extremely well” at all, it results in shortages and wait times exactly as you would expect from economics 101. I’m speaking from personal experience having been through it myself but feel free to look up how many Canadians go to the US every year and pay out of pocket for more evidence.
  - HarryHirsch 2y ago
    The wait time when you can't afford the physician is infinite. That's the market at work.
  - ogleopoly 2y ago
    [flagged]
gmueckl 2y ago
I feel that US companies are consistently more ruthless and cut-throat than companies in other countries I have visited. I see that as cultural rather than a pure economic issue.
maeil 2y ago
> All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Black and white oversimplification that muddies the water. You really can't think of two companies with incredibly different levels of "greed"?
ogleopoly 2y ago
[flagged]
- slater 2y ago
  Surely he'll come through! And totally won't take Biden's work and claim it as his own, right?
dudeofea 2y ago
Henry Ford tried not to be greedy all the time, then he was sued, and now all corporations are required to be greedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.
- fsflover 2y ago
  Which is why Purism is SPC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism_(company)
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  That's not really how that works. It's more along the lines of saying "we're doing this good thing because I want to and I have majority control so I don't have to care about the other shareholders" vs. saying "we're doing this good thing because it's good PR that may increase sales or help placate regulators" even though the thing you're doing is the exact same thing. There are a lot of rules whose de facto consequence is to prohibit describing the true reason someone is doing something instead of actually prohibiting them from doing it.
emn13 2y ago
One race-to-the-bottom phenomenon that (to me at least) appears to aggravate the impact of "corporate greed" is the social loop that goes as follows: 1. company decides to push the boundaries of the socially acceptable when it comes to cutting corners (e.g. screwing their customers, or employees, or environment, or debtors) 2. People don't like it, but rationalize this as being a natural consequence of incorporation and the profit motive. Hence while they grumble, there negative impacts to public perception don't actually cost the company as much as you might think 2b. Even if there's a boycott, there will be vocal minority that thinks it's all a bunch of whiny <target audience we're better than>. They'll actively harass or undermine said boycott or backlash, even if in a purely egotistical sense their interests are actually aligned with the boycotters 3. Social norm is reset; we all collectively expect even less from companies. That doesn't however mean the new norm is better or maintained, because as soon as there's some new major conflict between short-term profit and maintaining a decent reputation in public, we go back to step 1 from the new, lower baseline. Stuff like increasing partisanship, and decreasing incentives for journalist (whether profession, citizen or influencer) to maintain their professional standing (as opposed to targeting clickbate) probably smears those gears nicely. Many companies have historically clearly paid well over the odds to maintain their reputation, and done well doing so. It's just not true that nihilistic short term greed has always paid; obviously it didn't and still doesn't really. It profitable to do the little, but simultaneously also to do as many cheap things that materially affect public standing as possible. By promoting the profit motive past a merely utilitarian means to an efficiency-optimizing end into a matter of national identity and point of distinction vs. in particular the USSR, we've shifted our culture beyond what's really rational. We (as a society) don't merely respect and understand the profit motive; we see it as a sign of merit - and significant enough merit that "winning" on that scale excuses a lot of other bad behavior.

HarryHirsch 2y ago

Regulating prices is a recipe for disaster though That's an assertion, not a statement of fact. Pricing in natural monopolies is a mature subject, and public utilities have been a thing for over 100 years. Also, pricing for medical procedures is regulated in Europe, and it works extremely well.

ajmurmann 2y ago
Yes, it's preferably over allowing a monopoly to set prices. However, wherever possible you should break up the monopoly or prevent it on the first place. Of course there are conditions where that's very hard and you mention some of them. Setting prices where you could just have a functioning market has historically been well proven to lead to disaster. Look at any communist country. The GDR ended up allowing luxury stores that were not price bound and they were a huge hit for a reason.
aianus 2y ago
The wait time for medical procedures is extremely long in places with price caps. It does not work “extremely well” at all, it results in shortages and wait times exactly as you would expect from economics 101. I’m speaking from personal experience having been through it myself but feel free to look up how many Canadians go to the US every year and pay out of pocket for more evidence.
- HarryHirsch 2y ago
  The wait time when you can't afford the physician is infinite. That's the market at work.
- ogleopoly 2y ago
  [flagged]

gmueckl 2y ago

I feel that US companies are consistently more ruthless and cut-throat than companies in other countries I have visited. I see that as cultural rather than a pure economic issue.

maeil 2y ago

> All companies are greedy. That's the reason for existence. Black and white oversimplification that muddies the water. You really can't think of two companies with incredibly different levels of "greed"?

ogleopoly 2y ago

[flagged]

slater 2y ago
Surely he'll come through! And totally won't take Biden's work and claim it as his own, right?

dudeofea 2y ago

Henry Ford tried not to be greedy all the time, then he was sued, and now all corporations are required to be greedy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co.

fsflover 2y ago
Which is why Purism is SPC: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism_(company) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purism_(company)
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
That's not really how that works. It's more along the lines of saying "we're doing this good thing because I want to and I have majority control so I don't have to care about the other shareholders" vs. saying "we're doing this good thing because it's good PR that may increase sales or help placate regulators" even though the thing you're doing is the exact same thing. There are a lot of rules whose de facto consequence is to prohibit describing the true reason someone is doing something instead of actually prohibiting them from doing it.

emn13 2y ago

One race-to-the-bottom phenomenon that (to me at least) appears to aggravate the impact of "corporate greed" is the social loop that goes as follows: 1. company decides to push the boundaries of the socially acceptable when it comes to cutting corners (e.g. screwing their customers, or employees, or environment, or debtors) 2. People don't like it, but rationalize this as being a natural consequence of incorporation and the profit motive. Hence while they grumble, there negative impacts to public perception don't actually cost the company as much as you might think 2b. Even if there's a boycott, there will be vocal minority that thinks it's all a bunch of whiny <target audience we're better than>. They'll actively harass or undermine said boycott or backlash, even if in a purely egotistical sense their interests are actually aligned with the boycotters 3. Social norm is reset; we all collectively expect even less from companies. That doesn't however mean the new norm is better or maintained, because as soon as there's some new major conflict between short-term profit and maintaining a decent reputation in public, we go back to step 1 from the new, lower baseline. Stuff like increasing partisanship, and decreasing incentives for journalist (whether profession, citizen or influencer) to maintain their professional standing (as opposed to targeting clickbate) probably smears those gears nicely. Many companies have historically clearly paid well over the odds to maintain their reputation, and done well doing so. It's just not true that nihilistic short term greed has always paid; obviously it didn't and still doesn't really. It profitable to do the little, but simultaneously also to do as many cheap things that materially affect public standing as possible. By promoting the profit motive past a merely utilitarian means to an efficiency-optimizing end into a matter of national identity and point of distinction vs. in particular the USSR, we've shifted our culture beyond what's really rational. We (as a society) don't merely respect and understand the profit motive; we see it as a sign of merit - and significant enough merit that "winning" on that scale excuses a lot of other bad behavior.