YSK: Regulations don't exist because governments like them...
YSK: Regulations don't exist because governments like them...
159 comments
-
And pure unadulterated something-else-ism would not, lol. The concept of responsibility that hard to grasp?
-
The concept of responsibility that hard to grasp?
For companies that seems to be case yeah
-
Right. And how does capitalism have anything to do with it?
Edit: companies do not exist. Humans do
-
And how does capitalism have anything to do with it?
Oh that's a rhetorical question right?
Under capitalism companies have one and only one responsibility: making the most profit from the capital invested in them. This means that the responsibilities of all employees, even/especially those deciding how the company should act, are driven by this directive. A CEO would not be fulfilling their responsibilities to the shareholders if they made decisions that lower their profits without being forced by law to make those decisions.
companies do not exist. Humans do
Companies forwards their directive of maximizing profits to the humans that are employed by these companies.
-
No, that's not a rhetorical question. The "profit above all else" you have described is a bullshit tracing back to this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder_primacy
And again, there is no such thing as "companies direct responsibility". Humans do
So once again, what does capitalism have to do with people being absolute morons?
-
It's not people being morons it's people following the incentives of the system and fulfilling the responsibilities given to them by the companies they work for. Both of those are directly tied to capitalism. Because those "morons" are doing what capitalism strives for: maximizing the return on invested capital.
How exactly do you think that Wikipedia page disputes that companies are incentivised to maximize profit over everything else? It clearly says that
However, the doctrine of shareholder primacy has been criticized for being at odds with corporate social responsibility and other legal obligations.
The social responsibilities have to be enforced from the outside exactly because they are "at odds" with what companies would do without that enforcement.
-
People following incentives blah-bkah is people being morons. See also "I was following orders" fallacy applied to army
Capitalism strives for something? Niice. And I thought "economic system" does not have any strivings
Anything has to be enforced because we consistently fail to produce developed and balanced humans. Whatever -ism you try to build around what kind of people we have now, it will fail. So cut the crap about capitalism already
-
To some degree I agree with you. But it should be noted that poorly regulated capitalism often makes the smart decision for your own best interests to screw with others. Whereas better regulated capitalism (and socialism) theoretically makes that a smart decision less often.
Also, companies do exist, they exist specifically to shunt responsibility off of individuals. (Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because single people having responsibility for massive economic things is probably a recipe for disaster.)
We do need a significant change in culture, we also need to change the system.
-
Once again, need of regulation means humans are under-developed.
Caring for short-term benefit paying for it by damaging long-term profits is exactly why I call such people idiots, together with trying to use "companies", "capitalism", "incentives" and a whole ton of other illusions to run from responsibility. Do I need to explain how not taking responsibility means becoming a slave?
-
-
People following incentives blah-bkah is people being morons. See also “I was following orders” fallacy applied to army
No? It's being smart in the system around you. It might be unethical but following the incentives is the easy and profitable option. the incentives are set by the system in which you are living. Capitalism.
Capitalism strives for something? Niice. And I thought “economic system” does not have any strivings
I'm not sure where you got this. Economic, or broader, any social system strives for some kind of goal. Otherwise society wouldn't have implemented them. In the case of capitalism that goal is return on investments.
Anything has to be enforced because we consistently fail to produce developed and balanced humans. Whatever -ism you try to build around what kind of people we have now, it will fail. So cut the crap about capitalism already
The idea that there could be "developed and balanced" humans that would just resist the drive for profit that dominates our whole economy is just so flawed. We shouldn't try to make humans that fit the economic model. We should try to make an economic model that fits the humans we have. And the humans we have largely follow the incentives provided by the system, no matter how unethical the outcomes might be.
-
-being smart my ass, lol (that's insult to the idea, not you). That is not being smart, that is being stupid life-wise
- almost any social system is an immature mumbo-jumbo produced and kept in place by idiots. All -isms fall into this category
- the idea that humans are capable of recognising how life works is flawed in your eyes? Thanks, I end this conversation
-
I mean there is extensive research on the topic of incentives and how powerful they are. But sure you can go on and believe that humans aren't subject to being manipulated that way. Have a nice day
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
159 comments