3 ms·

The executives at these huge corporations already know that they can stand up to the Trump administration, and that it will fold immediately. "TACO" is printed

by mlsu 7mo ago

The executives at these huge corporations already know that they can stand up to the Trump administration, and that it will fold immediately. "TACO" is printed in the Wall St. Journal. They willingly don't, because they know that they can use the administration to cement their market power. The surveillance state being built is one where would-be competitors, labor, well-meaning reformists, can be crushed on a whim for sham political reasons. A massive contraction of USA wealth, influence, and power, a loss of our living standard and place in the world -- that is the price everyone else has to pay, to keep the existing power structure in place. They will not release their grip on the wheel. Not until the ship hits the bottom of the sea.

PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago
If that is the bet they are placing, it is a bet they will lose. The power and capabilities of US corporations does not rest solely on those corporations, and as the wealth, influence and power of the USA undergoes "a massive contraction", they will find themselves similarly degraded. They might be the big fish in the big pond, but only because everyone knows there's a bigger fish (the US government). Once other countries, and other corporations, no longer care much what the US government thinks, US corporations will find themselves in a very, very different situation.
- mlsu 7mo ago
  Of course! I think at some level the people at the top know that this American capitalism is not competitive. The last 5 years or so have been basically the whole country realizing that our system is not competitive. And, the last 1-2 years have been collectively, the world re-calibrating on this fact. The monopolists don't care though. The power is too intoxicating. I mean, listen to discussions here. "What's your moat?" -- that's how American capitalists think. Not "What value does your company provide to the customer", but what extra force, beyond simple-minded fair market competition, are you leveraging, to ensnare the customer. The game is to ensure that customers cannot choose another business over yours on its merits. That works in the short term but it's extractive. Eventually, the parasite must stop sucking blood for the host to survive.
  - robocat 7mo ago
    > parasite must stop sucking blood for the host to survive Biology doesn't work like that. Biological units are too selfish. It is an iterated game so evolution could affect how a parasite's children act. However defection is usually a winning strategy (because there's rarely enough coordination nor enough signals for cooperation to win). Biology has amazing metaphors, but unfortunately most writers and readers don't understand biology well enough to use those metaphors as part of an argument. The same issue occurs with other disciplines too.
    - mlsu 7mo ago
      > Biological units are too selfish Indeed they are.
nubg 7mo ago
> "TACO" is printed in the Wall St. Journal. Can you elaborate?
- mlsu 7mo ago
  "Trump Always Chickens Out" is an acronym that went around after "Liberation Day", when Trump very quickly reversed his position in response to the bond market basically telling him, no, you can't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out I misattributed it to the Wall Street Journal -- it was the Financial Times, point still stands.

by mlsu 7mo ago

PaulDavisThe1st 7mo ago

If that is the bet they are placing, it is a bet they will lose. The power and capabilities of US corporations does not rest solely on those corporations, and as the wealth, influence and power of the USA undergoes "a massive contraction", they will find themselves similarly degraded. They might be the big fish in the big pond, but only because everyone knows there's a bigger fish (the US government). Once other countries, and other corporations, no longer care much what the US government thinks, US corporations will find themselves in a very, very different situation.

mlsu 7mo ago
Of course! I think at some level the people at the top know that this American capitalism is not competitive. The last 5 years or so have been basically the whole country realizing that our system is not competitive. And, the last 1-2 years have been collectively, the world re-calibrating on this fact. The monopolists don't care though. The power is too intoxicating. I mean, listen to discussions here. "What's your moat?" -- that's how American capitalists think. Not "What value does your company provide to the customer", but what extra force, beyond simple-minded fair market competition, are you leveraging, to ensnare the customer. The game is to ensure that customers cannot choose another business over yours on its merits. That works in the short term but it's extractive. Eventually, the parasite must stop sucking blood for the host to survive.
- robocat 7mo ago
  > parasite must stop sucking blood for the host to survive Biology doesn't work like that. Biological units are too selfish. It is an iterated game so evolution could affect how a parasite's children act. However defection is usually a winning strategy (because there's rarely enough coordination nor enough signals for cooperation to win). Biology has amazing metaphors, but unfortunately most writers and readers don't understand biology well enough to use those metaphors as part of an argument. The same issue occurs with other disciplines too.
  - mlsu 7mo ago
    > Biological units are too selfish Indeed they are.

nubg 7mo ago

> "TACO" is printed in the Wall St. Journal. Can you elaborate?

mlsu 7mo ago
"Trump Always Chickens Out" is an acronym that went around after "Liberation Day", when Trump very quickly reversed his position in response to the bond market basically telling him, no, you can't do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_Always_Chickens_Out I misattributed it to the Wall Street Journal -- it was the Financial Times, point still stands.