4 ms·

Apple wouldn't exist without "rampant unregulated capitalism".

bigyabai 1y ago
Sure they would, they just wouldn't be as profitable.
croes 1y ago
Why not? I think Apple wouldn‘t exist without cheap labor in authoritarian countries but that‘s a prerequisite for capitalism
- _benton 1y ago
  Because Apple under Steve Jobs worked because Steve had full control. Zero chance they become successful run by committee or group ownership or whatever. And they also needed venture capital in the beginning afaik. I don't think Apple could have existed as it did under Jobs in any other system.
- bigyabai 1y ago
  Apple's primary value driver (when it mattered) was luxury margins on mediocre tech. Without rampant demand, you don't have market stratification. If substantial regulation like the DSA existed in 2014, Apple's business model would look radically different today.
strictnein 1y ago
Apple hasn't existed in a time with "rampant unregulated capitalism", whatever that term is supposed to mean. You can argue there weren't enough regulations, but there were massive volumes of business rules regulations in 1976.
- _benton 1y ago
  That's why I put it in quotation marks. Capitalism is heavily regulated in every western nation, perhaps every nation.
- komali2 1y ago
  It existed today, so, yes it has. Capitalism describes the global mode of production, not just the United States economy. We haven't already forgotten the anti-suicide nets at Foxconn, have we? Without the margins that cheap foreign labor provides, the insanely high growth target required to please investors in a Capitalist economy can't be achieved. I think we're fixating too much on purity of the word "unregulated." If you'd like to offer a different one I'm open to it - to me, the closest example of "regulated capitalism" is the PRC's State Capitalism, however it's a poor example given the atrocious working conditions there and the massive wealth inequality. "Unregulated" to me doesn't mean "literally no regulations." To me it means, the owners of Capital have a very large amount of power, to the point that every regulation on them is an uphill, nigh-unwinnable battle. See: pushes for 30 hour work weeks in Europe. Or, see: pushes for socialized healthcare in the USA. I think we can both agree that the USA will never have socialized healthcare so long as the health insurance companies wield so much power and influence!

Sure they would, they just wouldn't be as profitable.

Why not? I think Apple wouldn‘t exist without cheap labor in authoritarian countries but that‘s a prerequisite for capitalism

_benton 1y ago
Because Apple under Steve Jobs worked because Steve had full control. Zero chance they become successful run by committee or group ownership or whatever. And they also needed venture capital in the beginning afaik. I don't think Apple could have existed as it did under Jobs in any other system.
bigyabai 1y ago
Apple's primary value driver (when it mattered) was luxury margins on mediocre tech. Without rampant demand, you don't have market stratification. If substantial regulation like the DSA existed in 2014, Apple's business model would look radically different today.

strictnein 1y ago

Apple hasn't existed in a time with "rampant unregulated capitalism", whatever that term is supposed to mean. You can argue there weren't enough regulations, but there were massive volumes of business rules regulations in 1976.

_benton 1y ago
That's why I put it in quotation marks. Capitalism is heavily regulated in every western nation, perhaps every nation.
komali2 1y ago
It existed today, so, yes it has. Capitalism describes the global mode of production, not just the United States economy. We haven't already forgotten the anti-suicide nets at Foxconn, have we? Without the margins that cheap foreign labor provides, the insanely high growth target required to please investors in a Capitalist economy can't be achieved. I think we're fixating too much on purity of the word "unregulated." If you'd like to offer a different one I'm open to it - to me, the closest example of "regulated capitalism" is the PRC's State Capitalism, however it's a poor example given the atrocious working conditions there and the massive wealth inequality. "Unregulated" to me doesn't mean "literally no regulations." To me it means, the owners of Capital have a very large amount of power, to the point that every regulation on them is an uphill, nigh-unwinnable battle. See: pushes for 30 hour work weeks in Europe. Or, see: pushes for socialized healthcare in the USA. I think we can both agree that the USA will never have socialized healthcare so long as the health insurance companies wield so much power and influence!