Read http://www.colinwoodard.com/americannations for more info.
We might lose our grip on the world if we slow down - and there's not enough to go around.
"So what if we pollute? We're the cops of the world!"
There is way more to life than this.
The US has no interest in efficiency, you're mistaking us for Germans. The US has always had an economy based in a combination of slavery, the exploitation of immigrants, the exploitation of the badly educated, and the exploitation of impoverished foreigners through cruel middlemen. As a country that started with slavery, and rolled into the industrial revolution right when slavery was dissolving, it has always expected an input for lightly-skilled physical labor of humans who have no civil rights and can be paid then minimum that it takes to keep them alive.
America doesn't consider a person fully human who isn't at least in management, or doesn't hold a position that requires a university education. The degree of humanity is directly related to the number of people managed, or the cost of the education.
This myopic view is the religion of capitalism.
There are plenty of capitalists who don't support this kind of degrading, dehumanizing shit. And for that matter, capitalism doesn't even require corporations at all. It would be more fair to say:
"This myopic view is a disease that infects some organizations in a capitalist economy".
The question is, how do we eradicate the disease without killing the host(s)?
The only way to solve this is regulation. If you don't impose non-negotiable standards on everybody, the ones most willing to bend laws and morals succeed.
I'm sure that happens sometimes, but I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff. In fact, I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale.
And this is where we, as a community of hackers, need to put energy into doing the "stuff" that makes that sort of behavior self-defeating. We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise.
If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs. So the question becomes - how can we use tech to make reduce those same transaction costs, allowing smaller firms (down to the level of the individual, ideally) to proper just as well, without needing to build some byzantine, bureaucratic, behemoth?
The only way to solve this is regulation.
Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first. Regulation leads to regulatory capture, franchise agreements, taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones, ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows, all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc.
> I don't think it's been demonstrated - not do I think it's true - that companies prosper because they do this kind of stuff
I don't think it's because of this always, but it's certainly an advantage for companies that do.
> I'd argue that it's actually self-defeating over a sufficiently long time-scale
How long though, and how many people will have suffered by then? I mean, polluting the environment is self-defeating over a sufficiently long term, but we don't want to let this self-regulation happen because it will come with extinction. We should strive for things being fixed sooner rather than later.
> We need to be the ones figuring out more clever ways to decentralize things and use all this cool tech we've created to allow individuals greater autonomy, and more ability to proper without requiring the trappings of the big enterprise.
I agree 100%.
> If Coase[1] was right[2], then the main reason "firms" exist is to reduce transaction costs.
Oh, thanks for the link. I don't know enough about this to comment.
> Regulation is just another disease, which is arguably a more dangerous variation of the first.
Regulation refers to a setting rules. It's dangerous because the state is powerful, but it can also exist devoid of private interests for this reason. Like the FDA ensuring food is safe, or urban planning ensuring all buildings get water, electricity and other basic services.
> Regulation leads to regulatory capture,
Like running leads to injuries; I mean, if done wrong things will fail.
> franchise agreements,
These sound like regulatory capture.
> taxpayer subsidized firms that can out compete the unsubsidized ones,
Is this necessarily wrong? Subsidized fire departments and public libraries certainly out-perform unsubsidized ones. On certain industries subsidies might not make sense, but if it's an industry where a business model is hard to maintain (like a fire department) then why oppose it? Part of the reason regulation exists is to avoid market failure; sometimes private actors don't suffice.
> ginormous military/industrial contracts, the F-35 debacle, Navy destroyers running Windows
This sounds like government doing business poorly, not like government setting rules for better management and avoiding market failure.
> all manners of corruption and artificial monopolies, etc.
Well, if you have a corrupt government then yeah. There's instances of regulation done well too, though.
That may be true, but they're not the ones in charge at Amazon.
Unfortunately not the ones that matter on a meaningful scale. I can't imagine worker intel (even just the minimum: browsing on work machines, swipe in/out times, etc) is not being gathered at all Fortune 200 companies. These companies have the walk to the trash can calculated down to a quantitative loss in productive output. The solution? Tiny trash and recycling bins directly by your desk. Human asset management has it's tried and true methodologies, just as any other asset class.
Disclaimer: My view is U.S. centric, it is the mecca of global Capitalism.