News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:NSA Owns Everything (2015) by AnthonyMouse on Thursday August 13, 2020 @10:39AM (#24143783)
> Your individualism leads not to "freedom" but to accountants who help companies dodge (not avoid) tax, to politicians who don't speak up because it will damage their career, to bankers who extend credit when they know it's unsustainable in pursuit of their bonus, to news anchors who hold their tongue to avoid upsetting sponsors, on and on.

Every one of your complaints is a criticism of institutional incentives and publicly traded corporations rather than individualism.

There is no journalist alive who prefers, as an individual, to hold their tongue to avoid antagonizing sponsors. The possibility of doing otherwise was only ever enabled by the members of the local community who had enough resources to not have to care about losing sponsors by doing the right thing, and who were then willing to stand behind the journalists as the owners of the media company.

Today the companies are publicly traded, and doing that costs the shareholders money (or the parties votes, for political institutions), so anybody who does it is replaced by someone who doesn't. That is what's wrong. But that, ironically, is the consequence of a form of collective ownership. It's the principal-agent problem, where the shareholders as people don't actually want that but the institution is configured to prioritize making more money and you, as the owner of a retirement account which is the owner of an index fund which is the owner of a corporation, are not actually consulted on the decisions being made in your name.

Much of this would be solved if we had fewer layers of indirection between the principals and the agents, i.e. more smaller companies rather than fewer larger ones, or government which is more local and less central, so that the stakeholders who never wanted any of this to begin with are closer to the decisions that are being made in ways they don't prefer and have a better chance of causing them to be made in a different way. That's more of an increase in individualism than anything, though.

Re:NSA Owns Everything (2015) by kubanczyk on Thursday August 13, 2020 @11:50AM (#24144645)
You seem to be in a violent agreement with parent.

What parent calls "[flawed] culture", you call "layers of indirection between the principals and the agents". The number of these layers is a vital characteristic of the business culture, and you cannot just wish them away and claim victory.

Have an idea for a system that will work with as many people but less layers - please do tell about it (and about its relation to individualism, if there is any). But my guess it'd be radically different from the current one.

Re:NSA Owns Everything (2015) by AnthonyMouse on Thursday August 13, 2020 @07:01PM (#24150726)
One of the biggest reasons that the economy has transitioned to such enormous corporations is that regulatory compliance burdens are a ratchet. Every year new laws are passed but the old laws are not repealed, so every year the minimum size of an entity that can comply with all of the rules increases. We've also seen, on the other side, lax antitrust enforcement as large corporations regularly buy out their competitors and use vertical integration and vendor lock-in to constrain upstarts.

That isn't a cultural problem at all, it's a regulatory problem. We need the rules to be easier on smaller entities and harder on larger ones. So that more of the decisions actually are in the hands of individuals rather than large institutions, and individuals are once again given the authority to choose to do the right thing instead of being constrained by perverse institutional incentives.

More to the point, the parent's complaint was about the culture of individualism in particular, not some generic cultural problems that you can shoehorn any arbitrary failing into just because it's possible to describe anything systemic as cultural.