4 ms·

How about giving less profit to the shareholders? How about making customer support legally mandated so companies don't have the "greedy shareholder" excuse?

WalterBright 1y ago
> How about giving less profit to the shareholders? Then the shareholders will sell their shares. > How about making customer support legally mandated Then you'll have to pay higher prices for the product. Every mandate put on a company costs money and so higher prices are the result.
- aperrien 1y ago
  There is a range between less profit and no profit. As a shareholder, I'd rather have a functional society for all at the cost of a bit less profit, rather than being the richest in a world of ashes.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    As a shareholder, you can invest in whatever corporation you like and vote your agenda.
    - alsetmusic 1y ago
      You really are on the side of letting companies steamroll customers throughout this thread. There's what's technically true, and there's the society most of us would prefer to inhabit. I want mine to be less extractive of profits by any means necessary.
- Intermernet 1y ago
  Australia has very strong consumer protection laws but international companies still sell products here. They are forced to comply with the regulations and the prices are mostly comparable with other countries. Regulations work.
  - nickpp 1y ago
    Multinationals cherish and welcome regulations. They have whole compliance departments for exactly that: obeying regulations. How’s Australia’s startup scene though? Startups are the hardest hit by regulations. Fewer startups mean less competition for incumbents. This is how de-facto monopolies appear: through regulating competition out of existence.
    - Intermernet 1y ago
      Australia's startup scene is doing ok, but the funding model is lacking. There are a few reputable VCs, and very limited government funding. I don't think it's regulations that are cramping Australian startups, I think it's more lack of investment from both private and public sectors. I know many people who are running successful startups in Australia. I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition. It seems that monopolies in the US are very much protected by a lack of regulation on political donations rather than too much regulation.
      - nickpp 1y ago
        > I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition. Interesting. My belief is that regulations are the most harmful since they raise barriers to startup competition and thus protect monopolies (since startups, due to their hunger, are the most important source of competition in a market - incumbents usually end up in monopolies and cartels instead). We're seeing that here in the EU every day. But let's explore your point: how exactly do you think lobbying and donations are stymying competition? What's the mechanism at work?
        Intermernet 1y ago
        The mechanism is as old as the hills. You pay for favourable conditions for your business, and unfavourable conditions for your competitors. Australia has a classic history of political figures being given very comfortable jobs in the private sector after they've greased the wheel for their largest donors. This applies to tech, communications, finance, property development and probably every other money making sector. When contracts are awarded to companies based on lobbying and donations it stymies competition. The following quote is from the report linked at [1]. It's worth reading the entirety of that report. "the growing politicisation of public service, exemplified by political appointments to government bodies (Griffiths et al. 2022), may spill over into the contract market. Links between politics, donations, and contracts may negatively impact competition and firm entry". [1]: https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Political-Economy-The-Market-For-Government-Contracts-and-Influence.pdf https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Political-Economy-...

WalterBright 1y ago

> How about giving less profit to the shareholders? Then the shareholders will sell their shares. > How about making customer support legally mandated Then you'll have to pay higher prices for the product. Every mandate put on a company costs money and so higher prices are the result.

aperrien 1y ago
There is a range between less profit and no profit. As a shareholder, I'd rather have a functional society for all at the cost of a bit less profit, rather than being the richest in a world of ashes.
- WalterBright 1y ago
  As a shareholder, you can invest in whatever corporation you like and vote your agenda.
  - alsetmusic 1y ago
    You really are on the side of letting companies steamroll customers throughout this thread. There's what's technically true, and there's the society most of us would prefer to inhabit. I want mine to be less extractive of profits by any means necessary.
Intermernet 1y ago
Australia has very strong consumer protection laws but international companies still sell products here. They are forced to comply with the regulations and the prices are mostly comparable with other countries. Regulations work.
- nickpp 1y ago
  Multinationals cherish and welcome regulations. They have whole compliance departments for exactly that: obeying regulations. How’s Australia’s startup scene though? Startups are the hardest hit by regulations. Fewer startups mean less competition for incumbents. This is how de-facto monopolies appear: through regulating competition out of existence.
  - Intermernet 1y ago
    Australia's startup scene is doing ok, but the funding model is lacking. There are a few reputable VCs, and very limited government funding. I don't think it's regulations that are cramping Australian startups, I think it's more lack of investment from both private and public sectors. I know many people who are running successful startups in Australia. I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition. It seems that monopolies in the US are very much protected by a lack of regulation on political donations rather than too much regulation.
    - nickpp 1y ago
      > I'd argue that having a system of lobbying government and lax rules on political donations would have a much greater effect on stymying competition. Interesting. My belief is that regulations are the most harmful since they raise barriers to startup competition and thus protect monopolies (since startups, due to their hunger, are the most important source of competition in a market - incumbents usually end up in monopolies and cartels instead). We're seeing that here in the EU every day. But let's explore your point: how exactly do you think lobbying and donations are stymying competition? What's the mechanism at work?
      - Intermernet 1y ago
        The mechanism is as old as the hills. You pay for favourable conditions for your business, and unfavourable conditions for your competitors. Australia has a classic history of political figures being given very comfortable jobs in the private sector after they've greased the wheel for their largest donors. This applies to tech, communications, finance, property development and probably every other money making sector. When contracts are awarded to companies based on lobbying and donations it stymies competition. The following quote is from the report linked at [1]. It's worth reading the entirety of that report. "the growing politicisation of public service, exemplified by political appointments to government bodies (Griffiths et al. 2022), may spill over into the contract market. Links between politics, donations, and contracts may negatively impact competition and firm entry". [1]: https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Political-Economy-The-Market-For-Government-Contracts-and-Influence.pdf https://e61.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Political-Economy-...