>>>>>>>>And after all is said and done, we will end up governed, not by the government we elect, but by the power of the monopolies we did not elect. It's happening all around us already. If there is no protection for small start-up companies, it will just accellerate. When we're all living under the thumb of one huge mega-company, I wonder if we will look back on this and wish the government had played a role in protecting us.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Shades of Richard Morgan (from an interview):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Society is, always has been and always will be a structure for the exploitation and oppression of the majority through systems of political force dictated by an élite, enforced by thugs, uniformed or not, and upheld by a willful ignorance and stupidity on the part of the very majority whom the system oppresses."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As much as I enjoyed both Altered Carbon and Broken Angels I am not quite so glum about our future prospects.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>There has never been a time when small startup companies were protected. There has never been a time when wealth and power did not mean a greater say in how the game is played.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But there was a time when a startup could get under the radar long enough to establish itself. Now the predators have far better information on who's doing what.
>>>>>
>>>>>But you could also argue the startups have greater access to getting their message out.
>>>>
>>>>Which is, of course, one of the main reasons why larger companies are more easily able to ferret them out to stomp on.
>>>>
>>>>>Imagine starting up a venture on a national scale in 1925. And consider that previously the big opportunities were in inventory heavy or resource intensive manufacturing businesses. Definitely a disadvantage for the little guy. Each era has its own set of challenges.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I very much like the effect the computer has had on power distribution. Immense power of information and distribution that formerly did not even belong to the most powerful government or corporation. Much as the printing press broke the power of Rome and the Maxim gun changed warfare.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I would agree with you if the camps weren't so sharply delineated and abominably close minded. You've seen it yourself here. Somebody posts a pointer to a blog or whatever, and it's inevitably, "Agh. Thats just some stupid [right/left] (choose one) wing nutcase spouting biased crap."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Information is only useful if it is absorbed.
>>>>>
>>>>>That is a very good point. Interesting to think that 200 years ago pretty much every newspaper was a virulently polemical organ of a political faction with not even lip service to objectivity - and access to information was so limited outside of whatever paper(s) controlled a geographic area.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, it's nice to know they've progressed so much in the 'lip service' area.
>>>>
>>>>>>>I am not sure from what the government can "protect" us.The most important thing that came out of the English enlightenment was the cynical view of mankind that insisted all power be counterbalanced, rather than insisting "the good" would rule.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And is it? Personally, I'd say, "Yeah, right."
>>>>>
>>>>>Imperfect, true, but not based on the illusion of the "new man" who will behave as humans have never behaved before and therefore behave as social engineers would like him to. ( the Stepford Citizen <g> ) It is cruel to promise utopia to people who couldn't live there.
>>>>
>>>>>>>And who protects us from the government? It is not a new question. Juvenal asked "Sed quis custodiet ipsos custdodes?" - But who will watch the watchers?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The hardest question of all. But is lacking a good answer to that a good reason for doing nothing?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, but there is reason to be sceptical about social engineering or mandated solutions. Businesses at least must show results - if only to their money grubbing stockholders. And on some level they must provide satisfaction. Politicians have a lot more room for smoke and mirrors. Seldom are they judged on results but more often on image. And there most compelling argument is too often "But the other guys are even bigger crooks than we are and if you vote for them weasels will eat your baby's flesh." Businesses may dazzle with advertising I'll take a pitchman over a demagogue any day <g>
>>>>
>>>>But I still believe the government (since it's the only entity in a position to do so) must act as some sort of legislative buffer to curtail the predatory nature of business. Otherwise, Richard Morgan's future is not so far fetched.
>>>
>>>>I just can't find it in myself to buy the line that if businesses act badly, then they are destined to fail.
>>>
>>>I'm not sure I said that. I think it is not the government's job to decide whether a business fails or not... and that there is precious little the government can do about that even with the best of intentions.
>>
>>Iirc (and I'm not saying I do), didn't you say something like companies need to act in a win-win way in order to remain sustainable? My argument all along has been that they don't.
>>
>
>In any relationship if there is win-lose situation the party on one half of the equation is always looking for a way to destablize it. That's bad business. Works in the short term, sure, but in the long run contains the seeds of its own failure.

Well, my argument is that win-win is not their practice. It's win-IDontCare.

>>>But the theme of predatory practices against startups seems to run pretty consistantly through your arguments. It's sounding personal. Have you been a victim of this kind of stuff? ( I am also not aware of Canada's anti-trust law situation at all )
>>
>>Nope. I've never been a victim, but that doesn't change my belief that large companies are generally predatory, and do not necessarily have the best interests of their customers or their respective countries economies at heart. They pretty much care about one thing - their own greed, and if governments can't put a rein on that greed... well, nobody else can, and those who are not part of that greed continuum are fated for an uncomfortable future.
>
>But the point is that in the market system you act in your own best interests. This makes behavior predictable. An intelligent capitalist knows his first obligation is to his investors and employees. You are assuming sociopathic behavior is in the best interests of the company - I am claiming exactly the opposite.

Not necessarily. I'm not claiming anything at all about sociopathic behaviour other than in order to become the CEO in a major corporation, it helps to be sociopathic to some extent. And, I expect that usually it is not so much the best interest of the company that is the goal of that CEO, but more, power and money garnered to him/herself.

>Look at public education. It didn't happen because social reformers thought it would be nice if people could read it happened because captalists perceived a literate workforce as being good for the bottom line. Political demagogues would have preferred illiterate mobs that could be manipulated by the elite.

I have to question that. If that were the case, then public education would only have grown up where such employees were needed. Public education in outlying areas where men were expected to go to work in the mines, in the forests, building railroads, etc should never have happened. But they did - even though kids growing up in those areas were never expected really to need to be able to read and write.

>I think if those who were pushing the much needed healthcare reform in the US framed the argument in different terms they'd get more support where they need it. It is expensive and inefficient for out society to have anyone who does not have good health insurance and is one of those win-lose situations that is destabilizing. Good universal health care does not have to be argued strictly on theoretical or charitable grounds. It is good for everybody.

But it's not good for those making fortunes from private health care. Universal health care might well cause a lowering in the incomes of those running the private systems now. So argued on any other basis than moral, it's unlikely to gain much traction at all.

That's like saying that unemployment is bad for society. Yes on moral grounds, very much NO according to economic wizards.

>That was always a strong argument against institutional racism or sexism. Sure it's immoral, but it is also very bad for the economy and the society.

How can you possibly say that when you consider that the fortunes of so many were built on the backs of slave labour?

Do you honestly think that blacks and women won the right to vote because corporations thought it was good for the economy? Which economic gurus were preaching that? If it hadn't been for the fact that men were off fighting wars and there was, finally, no other choice, women would still be about 50 years behind where they are now.

>Same with predatory practices that are actually in restraint of trade. It is bad economics. Being a ruthless businessman is not the same thing as being a good businessman. There are a lot of factors involved in business success. When they are all in line the business actually makes more money with less hassle.

>Adam Smith actually got all that - a long time ago and with a much deeper understanding of the future than anything Marx cobbled together.

>>
>>I don't recall who wrote it, but somebody said that in order to be the CEO of a major corporation, one needs to be relatively sociopathic. Within sane limits, I believe that, and I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
>
>I think to be a successful CEO you need exactly the opposite - you need to understand the long-term best interests of the corporations - and the larger the company and the further its reach the more that is intertwined with the health of the society.

>That is not to say people always behave that way, but you can't legislate them to do so - only educate them as to their own best interests.

>People vote with their dollars and voter turnout is high. And a lot of those voters are very offended by the self-proclaimed elite who claim they vote those dollars as they do only because they are stupid sheep who aren't sophisticated enough to understand what they want. I think there is too much emphasis on educating the unwashed masses not to shop at Walmart and not enough on educating the capitalists on the nature of intelligent capitalism.

And why do you suppose that is? Is it not because that's what makes more sense from a greed standpoint, which is the grease on which our society runs?