5 ms·

Deeply corrupt country we've created here, and it seems impossible to back out of it. How are you gonna get congress to cut their effective pay? I would bet mon

by Kapura 11mo ago

Deeply corrupt country we've created here, and it seems impossible to back out of it. How are you gonna get congress to cut their effective pay? I would bet money that there are people who go to congress _solely because_ of the advantages it will give them back in the private sector. If you even got it on a ballot or something where the general populace could vote on it, you can bet your ass that, thanks to citizens united, the pro-owning-stocks lobby would outspend the anti-corruption folks 10 to 1. I guess the way to start is by shaming these obviously corrupt officials and practices. Much like racism, people don't mind being corrupt but they seem to mind being _called_ corrupt.

ActorNightly 11mo ago
Philosophically speaking, this is what people want though. The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money. And everyone has a choice to vote with their wallets and through their actions in general. For example, take Elon and his actions over the past few years. What should have happened is that Tesla sales dropped across the board, and everyone who owns a Tesla should have been in a rush to sell it for fear of it getting scratched or them personally blacklisted from stuff and ridiculed for driving a Tesla. Tesla employees should also have faced the same public pressure and quit. But people don't care - at the end of the day, politics on Capitol hill is mostly a meme, but what matters is their personal satisfaction. And you look ridiculous if you refuse to get in your coworkers Tesla. So now Elon is a trillionaire. On the flip side, in a capitalistic sense, it honestly doesn't matter if people are rich, the thing that should matter is what power the money gives them. Rich people buying mansions is a good thing - thats money to workers for construction, staff for housekeeping, and so on. Rich people doing things like being able to buy whole media platforms and censoring things is definitely not good though. The question is, is society headed in a direction where people have more and more apathy and eventually nothing will matter as things get progressively worse and everyone is just complacent, or is there a bottom line where people start paying attention enough and actually fighting for change when it gets bad enough.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- eatsyourtacos 11mo ago
  >Philosophically speaking, this is what people want though No- it's what the rich and powerful want and they have forced their ways on everyone because there's nothing we can do to stop it.
  - kelipso 11mo ago
    Right. Under a dictatorship, you wouldn’t just say philosophy speaking this is what people want because if they didn’t, they would revolt.
    - akoboldfrying 11mo ago
      You have a point, but I think the situation can be framed as a question of "what people want" by modelling the decision better. (People under a dictator sometimes do revolt, but often don't.) The choice people have is not between a dictator and no dictator, it's between a dictator and a period of instability and chaos, possibly including bloody fighting or even famine, the outcome of which is (a) completely uncertain even in the unlikely event that you know that ~everyone wants the dictator gone and (b) might be that the dictator's forces still come out on top, or that someone even worse is installed into power.
      - deleted 11mo ago
        [deleted]
- cortesoft 11mo ago
  > The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money. And everyone has a choice to vote with their wallets and through their actions in general. This ‘voting with your wallet’ argument always ignores the problem of collective action. Even if every individual would prefer the bad companies to not exist (or at least to not behave the way they do), the rational choice is still to purchase products from them if their product is superior and/or cheaper. Take something like Walmart or Amazon. I think a majority of people dislike the way they do business (the way they treat their employees, the environment, and competitors), but the only choice a consumer has is “shop there and get the cheaper prices, and the company continues to exist like it does” or “don’t shop their, pay more money for things, and the company continues to exist like it does” Me, as an individual customer, can’t make the company stop existing in its current form. They aren’t going to miss my business. It isn’t even a rounding error on their balance sheet. My only choice is to get the cheaper prices or not. Even if the company would change if everyone stopped shopping, I don’t get to make that choice. Hell, if everyone else is stopping shopping there and they are going to go out of business, it is STILL in my best interest to shop their while I can and save the money… it isn’t like my business is going to SAVE them any more than it will kill them. You can’t kill a business practice by voting with your wallet. The only time consumer choice will work is when the individual consumer has a better alternative; if I get a better PERSONAL experience (either cheaper or a better product) by shopping somewhere else, then voting with your wallet makes sense and will work (because everyone will have the same incentive). Companies won’t be punished for their external costs by their customers, since the customers aren’t choosing to suffer those costs or not; they suffer the external costs no matter what, they only can choose to enjoy the benefits or not. Why suffer the external costs AND not even get to enjoy the benefits? This is why change has to come from some binding collective action (like legislation or regulation or something), not individual consumer choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem
GuinansEyebrows 11mo ago
> Much like racism, people don't mind being corrupt but they seem to mind being _called_ corrupt. not to be too pithy, but there's been a pretty major erosion of what most of us probably thought was a relatively safe constant in that regard :(

by Kapura 11mo ago

ActorNightly 11mo ago

Philosophically speaking, this is what people want though. The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money. And everyone has a choice to vote with their wallets and through their actions in general. For example, take Elon and his actions over the past few years. What should have happened is that Tesla sales dropped across the board, and everyone who owns a Tesla should have been in a rush to sell it for fear of it getting scratched or them personally blacklisted from stuff and ridiculed for driving a Tesla. Tesla employees should also have faced the same public pressure and quit. But people don't care - at the end of the day, politics on Capitol hill is mostly a meme, but what matters is their personal satisfaction. And you look ridiculous if you refuse to get in your coworkers Tesla. So now Elon is a trillionaire. On the flip side, in a capitalistic sense, it honestly doesn't matter if people are rich, the thing that should matter is what power the money gives them. Rich people buying mansions is a good thing - thats money to workers for construction, staff for housekeeping, and so on. Rich people doing things like being able to buy whole media platforms and censoring things is definitely not good though. The question is, is society headed in a direction where people have more and more apathy and eventually nothing will matter as things get progressively worse and everyone is just complacent, or is there a bottom line where people start paying attention enough and actually fighting for change when it gets bad enough.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
eatsyourtacos 11mo ago
>Philosophically speaking, this is what people want though No- it's what the rich and powerful want and they have forced their ways on everyone because there's nothing we can do to stop it.
- kelipso 11mo ago
  Right. Under a dictatorship, you wouldn’t just say philosophy speaking this is what people want because if they didn’t, they would revolt.
  - akoboldfrying 11mo ago
    You have a point, but I think the situation can be framed as a question of "what people want" by modelling the decision better. (People under a dictator sometimes do revolt, but often don't.) The choice people have is not between a dictator and no dictator, it's between a dictator and a period of instability and chaos, possibly including bloody fighting or even famine, the outcome of which is (a) completely uncertain even in the unlikely event that you know that ~everyone wants the dictator gone and (b) might be that the dictator's forces still come out on top, or that someone even worse is installed into power.
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
cortesoft 11mo ago
> The only reason people make money off of stocks is because at the end, someone gives those companies money. And everyone has a choice to vote with their wallets and through their actions in general. This ‘voting with your wallet’ argument always ignores the problem of collective action. Even if every individual would prefer the bad companies to not exist (or at least to not behave the way they do), the rational choice is still to purchase products from them if their product is superior and/or cheaper. Take something like Walmart or Amazon. I think a majority of people dislike the way they do business (the way they treat their employees, the environment, and competitors), but the only choice a consumer has is “shop there and get the cheaper prices, and the company continues to exist like it does” or “don’t shop their, pay more money for things, and the company continues to exist like it does” Me, as an individual customer, can’t make the company stop existing in its current form. They aren’t going to miss my business. It isn’t even a rounding error on their balance sheet. My only choice is to get the cheaper prices or not. Even if the company would change if everyone stopped shopping, I don’t get to make that choice. Hell, if everyone else is stopping shopping there and they are going to go out of business, it is STILL in my best interest to shop their while I can and save the money… it isn’t like my business is going to SAVE them any more than it will kill them. You can’t kill a business practice by voting with your wallet. The only time consumer choice will work is when the individual consumer has a better alternative; if I get a better PERSONAL experience (either cheaper or a better product) by shopping somewhere else, then voting with your wallet makes sense and will work (because everyone will have the same incentive). Companies won’t be punished for their external costs by their customers, since the customers aren’t choosing to suffer those costs or not; they suffer the external costs no matter what, they only can choose to enjoy the benefits or not. Why suffer the external costs AND not even get to enjoy the benefits? This is why change has to come from some binding collective action (like legislation or regulation or something), not individual consumer choice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_action_problem

GuinansEyebrows 11mo ago

> Much like racism, people don't mind being corrupt but they seem to mind being _called_ corrupt. not to be too pithy, but there's been a pretty major erosion of what most of us probably thought was a relatively safe constant in that regard :(