Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[McTraveller]

My stream of consciousness on this... ultimately I think it boils down to defeatism/futilism which makes people think the only way forward is acquiescence or violence, which I think stems from being isolated. I just can't get behind that view - I think that there really is power in collaborative effort, even against "the big giant corporations." It just takes forming a big enough community to do it.  Basically yes - if you try to do it "on your own" you probably can't.

"Government" is actually a corporation...a collaborative effort of people working toward a goal. Any time you pool resources of a group of people, you get a corporate organization.  I just don't see this "corporations always turn evil" inevitability.  Governments are arguably even more "everyone is fungible" than corporations anyway... at least in my experience.  Maybe I'm missing something about what you mean by "corporation" as opposed to any other type of collaborative effort...if your argument is the goal of the group, then that doesn't have anything to do with the organizational structure but the goal. So it's not being a "corporation" that is evil, it's a goal of profit at all cost that is the problem. And many companies don't have that as their goal.

I also just don't share the idea that you have to punish others to "get ahead."  Yes if there is criminal activity then there needs to be justice, but punishment is not always justice.  The aim of punishment is to hurt; the aim of justice is to restore.  There's a big difference.

What this ultimately requires is that on average society produces more than it consumes, so there is spare reserve.  At the most basic level, an individual needs to be able to make 1+x years worth of food in 1 year, so they can spend x years doing something other than producing food.  That kind of thing.  This is totally orthogonal to "corporation" vs "government" vs any other structure of which you can think.

I do agree we could re-think how we make that "excess production" available to individuals.  I don't think UBI will work; I think a citizens' dividend model is a more robust solution.

I also think people vastly underestimate the power of collaboration. All these claims that "the people" can't compete with organizations that already have supply chains and logistics... I think it's a cultural shift that makes "the masses" believe they can't collaborate. Everyone is so isolated, and apparently has been trained that "it's hopeless, the only way forward is to fight."

[Maximum Spin]

It is not false. Kroger could do that and there is only one reason it hasn't happened to your local store, Kroger doesn't want to start that fight yet.

Look, Kroger (well, we don't have Kroger here, but whatever chain store you like) is not God. This is just defeatism. If local stores still exist and sometimes do not get crushed, then it follows that it is not inherently unfeasible to start a local store if you dislike a chain store.

More importantly, you fail to understand. There's basically zero chance a big chain store could outcompete the local store I'm talking about in the way that Shonus imagined, because it would be incredibly unprofitable. You'd be talking about spending the money to build an entire megastore in essentially the middle of nowhere for perhaps a couple hundred people. Actually a minimum of three since Shonus imagined "covering every approach". The logistics for getting supply to those stores would also be ridiculous.

Frankly, in my area, local stores are winning out over chain stores overall, because there are no economies of scale. One of my nearest towns doesn't even have a chain grocery store at all anymore.

[Robot Parade Leader]

Governments aren't corporations. Not all companies are corporations. It's the structure.

Limited liability
Limited taxes
Limited accountability.

I'm not a lawyer but it is really hard to sue the individual owners. They also pay a lot less taxes to the government, even though they buy the government to control it with lobbying.

Making money is literally their only goal and one thing I know is that the shareholders can sue if it isn't. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-55-billion-pay-package-delaware-judge-ruling/ So basically one of the shareholders sued because they thought some of the management wasn't about company profits enough and part of that was they were giving too much to Musk. This person was not in the majority of shareholders but didn't matter. The corporations have a duty to make as much money for their shareholders as possible.

If they say they have another goal that is just PR and BS. Who is going to hold them accountable to any other "goal?"

In a government that votes you get a vote no matter if you're rich or not. The problem is corporate lobbying and "special interests."

Justice isn't about restoration because how are you gonna restore things? Someone beats the crap outta someone else. What are you going to "restore?" Look at Enron https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron and how well it is documented that they screwed up everything on purpose because they didn't care. People lost an enormous amount of money including retirement funds, and all the careers, just stuff that you can never get back because it's too big. No one is going to give back all the retirement funds that got lost on that because all the money is gone and no one can.

That's just in cases were nobody died and nobody can restore that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire There's just too many instances of corporate problems and it's all corporate because corporates are given less liability. They know they can't be held to account for this crap and that's why they do risky behavior. They don't care if their workers get maimed or killed on the job unless the government steps in and forces them to care. They don't care if their products are bad unless the government forces them to care. They become monsters when they realize they can get away with so much crap it isn't even funny https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals https://247wallst.com/special-report/2019/12/20/the-biggest-corporate-scandals-of-the-decade/

Foxconn suicides are in that list as protests of working conditions.
Theranos was in business 15 years without publishing a single scientific study or having one published.

You and I could never pull that level of crap off, but a corporation could.

I get that you're probably not going to see things my way and that's ok. I'm not against collective action. Corporations are a type of evil collective and there are tons more types of collectives out there that aren't evil. When you remove accountability bad things happen and that's what corporations do. In governments that vote, the bad can be voted out as long as people are smart enough. Trump is basically a nightmare for this reason. Usually you would say the bad things a politician did and people would see it a vote them out. For some crazy reason his followers see the bad crap he did and love him more.

I wish you were right. I really do.  I don't want a world with punishment. Take away punishment and the bullies will go wild.

[anewaname]

It is not false. Kroger could do that and there is only one reason it hasn't happened to your local store, Kroger doesn't want to start that fight yet.

Look, Kroger (well, we don't have Kroger here, but whatever chain store you like) is not God. This is just defeatism. If local stores still exist and sometimes do not get crushed, then it follows that it is not inherently unfeasible to start a local store if you dislike a chain store.

More importantly, you fail to understand. There's basically zero chance a big chain store could outcompete the local store I'm talking about in the way that Shonus imagined, because it would be incredibly unprofitable. You'd be talking about spending the money to build an entire megastore in essentially the middle of nowhere for perhaps a couple hundred people. Actually a minimum of three since Shonus imagined "covering every approach". The logistics for getting supply to those stores would also be ridiculous.

Frankly, in my area, local stores are winning out over chain stores overall, because there are no economies of scale. One of my nearest towns doesn't even have a chain grocery store at all anymore.

I failed to understand that you were thinking of a place that only has two hundred people... I definitely did not understand that. You could have mentioned that sooner... really  :p

How about a Dollar Store, located in the two largest nearby towns? Because, dollar stores work like mini-Krogers without the fresh produce, killing local stores by cutting into their profits.

And, this was strangely reminiscent of a recent news blurb:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Trump wanted to deny disaster relief to Orange County, CA, until his advisors gave him the appropriate context that there were more Trump voters in the won-by-Biden Orange County than Trump voters in three red states. nytimes article

[McTraveller]

The "a company has a legal obligation to make as much money as possible" is a myth that just won't die apparently. I'm not even going to Google it for you, you can read up on it yourself, from numerous sources.

I suppose I see the argument about how corporations facilitate certain types of bad behavior. It's not required though: if you get rid of corporations, I guarantee you'd still see the types of ill effects that you're blaming on corporate structures.  So blaming it on "the existence of corporations" doesn't hold water.  The only corporations that don't have broad accountability are privately-held ones; but even those are accountable to civil and criminal law even if the "general public" doesn't have a voice in the board of directors.

Also the super rich didn't get to be super rich because of tax breaks or loopholes. They got to be super rich because they both took a small amount of money from a massive number of people and/or they have a large number of shares in a company that has a high valuation.  I agree (and have stated previously) that society does expose itself to hazards if it allows too much wealth to concentrate in the hands of a single person.  You don't have to get rid of corporations for this; you just have to put in protections to prevent a single person from that type of wealth accumulation, change the rules of how share allocations work, etc.

Also I should say: I'm not saying you shouldn't hold people (or companies) accountable for criminal or negligent behavior.  I grant there is some punitive aspect to enforcing these social contracts - but the goal shouldn't be punishment; the goal should be preventing abuse and restoring the aggrieved (which doesn't always mean just merely giving them currency units).

[martinuzz]

The longshoreman strike is related to the presidential elections, because even if it is "good timing" for the union to force their demands through right now, that union leader would not have done it without political support from other groups. He is going to completely screw the shipping and trucking businesses, along with farm exports, so someone else out there is backing his play, and the rightwing media response shows this.

Other news, in Colorado, 9 years of prison for the Mesa County Colorado clerk who was in the group that attempted to physically hack the 2020 elections in Colorado. Incarceration, not probation...

I like that judge, Pretty straightfoward, no nonsense.
He does need to practice saying 'uh' a bit less when he is thinking about formulating his words.

I hope the same will happen to Trump.

[hector13]

A Wisconsin mayor is under investigation by the state Department of Justice for removing an absentee ballot box, which he doesn’t have the authority to do.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-department-of-justice-investigating-mayors-removal-of-ballot-drop-box/ar-AA1rENf8

[Robot Parade Leader]

https://www.wired.com/story/elon-musk-donald-trump-butler-register-vote/

Musk doesn't care. "Dark MAGA" huh?

"Musk was previously an Obama, Clinton and Biden voter who donated to politicians on both sides of the aisle but touted himself as someone who generally tried to stay out of politics. At a 2015 Vanity Fair event, Musk said he hoped Trump wouldn’t clinch the Republican nomination for president because “that wouldn’t be good” and “would be a bit embarrassing.” He also told CNBC that he didn’t believe Trump had the “sort of character that reflects well on the United States” while voicing support for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton’s policy platform."

Looks like Musk will flip flop to whoever he thinks can benefit him in the moment. I'm not trying to be like that but what other conclusion are reasonable people supposed to draw? If you support Trump, then you support Trump. If you said you support Hillary Obama, Clinton, and Biden then that's 180 degrees out from Trump.

We really used to think some conservative people like Musk and Rudy Giuliani were pretty ok and respected them. Musk was seen as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Rudy was America's Mayor after 9/11. What the hell happened? Note, we didn't flip flop or change, but they did. Rudy went from being someone Democrats could respect and agree with to... I mean look him up lately. I don't think he is doing OK.

WTF is this face and jumpy thing he's doing:
https://i.imgur.com/HEuWOHz.jpeg

A Wisconsin mayor is under investigation by the state Department of Justice for removing an absentee ballot box, which he doesn’t have the authority to do.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-department-of-justice-investigating-mayors-removal-of-ballot-drop-box/ar-AA1rENf8

That is wild. I just don't get it. The guy is elected and is removing parts of the election system.

Same deal with the clerk kinda. I don't know anymore if I ever did.

[Folly]

Looks like Musk will flip flop to whoever he thinks can benefit him in the moment. I'm not trying to be like that but what other conclusion are reasonable people supposed to draw?

Trump has broadcast his plan to grant Musk vast authority to fire and hire employees across the entire Federal Government, charging him with performing an 'audit' of the entire country. Musk's motives could not be more transparent here.

[lemon10]

They fully drunk the coolaid. Its the same as the republics who commit voter fraud, believing that voter fraud is something that is very common in America and happens all the time.

Same here, voter fraud and hacking and election interference happen *all the time* they think, and it just all goes under the rug or is never noticed and is forgotten about. Since its so common and so many cases happen if *I* do it the odds of me getting caught are very low.
---
Honestly I think Musk just became a "normal" trump loving republican like ~30% of the country. The idea of a lonely "anti-woke/trans" person addicted to the right wing twitter-o-sphere getting radicalized shouldn't shock anyone.

His support of Trump is probably a bit mercenary, but if you actually look at the stuff he's been posting on twitter he clearly believes a lot of the far right stuff and conspiracies. Of course someone that has publicly professed their belief in white replacement theory is voting trump.

I don't think Musk of 4 years ago before he bought twitter would have supported Trump, but people change.

[martinuzz]

There was a time when I respected Musk as well.

But he's gone batshit insane. Which doesn't surprise me with his alleged multiple drug abuse. C'mon, who in their right mind expects to stay sane when using LSD, cocaine, ketamine, XTC, mushrooms, and whatever more hard drugs.

[Duuvian]

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/housing-crisis-shift-right-define-san-francisco-mayoral-race-2024-10-05/

I propose that after this election the general left cease co-operation with the centrists by refusing to vote in general elections. There are so many things going wrong because of their leadership and untrustworthiness. Furthermore they are incapable of acknowledging there is significant corruption and moreover are elevating that corruption. The only reason for me to support them is because they aren't Donald Trump who doesn't even bother to present a face to mask corruption. In fact, I'd suggest that without pulling support there is no reason the centrists won't simply use the mountain of resources to prop that movement up again (see story at top) in order to compel everyone else.

Here is another in a long-running series of events:

https://www.bridgedetroit.com/police-will-listen-for-gunfire-in-more-detroit-neighborhoods/

Yet

https://igchicago.org/2021/08/24/oig-finds-that-shotspotter-alerts-rarely-lead-to-evidence-of-a-gun-related-crime-and-that-presence-of-the-technology-changes-police-behavior/

Oops! Another $7,000,000 wasted on unnecessary fraud!

https://www.techdirt.com/2021/08/02/shotspotter-again-spotted-altering-shots-spots-to-better-serve-police-narratives/

https://www.techdirt.com/2021/08/26/chicago-pd-oversight-says-shotspotter-tech-is-mostly-useless-when-it-comes-to-fighting-gun-crime/

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/09/27/yet-another-study-shows-shotspotter-cant-fight-crime-or-get-help-to-shooting-victims-faster/

Why, it's almost as if there is corruption inside the party! That this corrupt part of the party is undermining everyone else and consolidating power while demanding "unity"! That the leadership seems broadly paralyzed! While policy is showing signs being shaped in the interest of hostile foreign powers due to unaccountability culture in the security faction that no one trusts! Who apparently can't find other people for leadership, in the obviously reasonable fear it won't be a promotion for whoever aren't embedded with the hook!

The sad thing is by being incompetent

https://www.techdirt.com/2024/10/03/court-quickly-rejects-californias-deepfake-law-as-blatantly-unconstitutional/

the centrists are not only setting the position to benefit the right, but also are ceding it completely by being just plain laughingstock with these whack ass bills they are pushing.

[Starver]

If I was as rich and famous as Musk, some of my perhaps weirder ideas might well come to the fore. (Rather than genuinely sane ideas that I have, such as giving everyone who uses the word "decimate" just one a chance to prove they they meant to say that (or recant and switch to "devastate"), or else forcing them into indentured servitude for a year in a public service of my choice.)


It's just a matter of getting to the point of believing your own legend.

Actually, the rich isn't even a prerequisite (though it helps to empower the fame). Not entirely sure if the fame is necessary on top of riches (it's hard to assess the sanity of people that you never realise exist). But having extreme riches and extreme fame together probably do a number on most people, given half a chance.

[Frumple]

We really used to think some conservative people like Musk and Rudy Giuliani were pretty ok and respected them. Musk was seen as Tony Stark/Iron Man and Rudy was America's Mayor after 9/11. What the hell happened? Note, we didn't flip flop or change, but they did. Rudy went from being someone Democrats could respect and agree with to... I mean look him up lately. I don't think he is doing OK.

I don't think they did change, really? Other folks didn't change much, either, exactly.

People just started to pay more attention to the apartheid boy grifter and fucker-who-once-incited-a-racist-police-riot.

For reasons varied, exactly how shitty they were wasn't given much attention, but, like. Both of those were shitty, shitty people for a long, long time. Change in situations (musk getting twitter, rudy latching onto trump, both of them getting older) amplified how loud it was, some degree of radicalization probably did occur, but.. neither of them have seen major shifts in beliefs or personalities. It's just become more clear exactly what that was, and when people started noticing, instead of doing anything reasonable they just doubled down.

I propose that after this election the general left cease co-operation with the centrists by refusing to vote in general elections.

This, though, is just about the worst idea you can possibly propose. When you stop voting, you stop getting listened to, flat out and without exception, and the american left doesn't have nearly the numbers to make that effective for doing anything but fucking themselves.

What you have to do is push primaries (intensely, consistently), build and maintain networks that aren't primarily electoral (mutual aid, gotv stuff, media, on and on), educate and push ballot measures, so on and so forth. That's what works, to the extent anything built on a minority influence does in an ostensibly majoritarian system, to push the party and nation towards whatever your political inclinations are. It's not easy, it's not quick, but it's at least capable of accomplishing something, whereas withholding your vote does exactly fuckall.

[Maximum Spin]

If the CEO testifying in court isn't evidence, then I don't know what is. The whole thing is about that and the link goes to the issue of them charging too much/that the merger would be bad because of it. Testimony in court featured in a business friendly publication like Forbes isn't good enough
https://www.forbes.com/sites/errolschweizer/2024/09/04/why-a-price-gouging-ban-isnt-so-crazy-after-all/
Bloomberg:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-08-27/kroger-hiked-milk-egg-prices-above-inflation-merger-judge-told

You know, I suddenly decided I needed to respond to this in detail.

You say yourself, "a business friendly publication like Forbes". Forbes and Bloomberg are the tools of what you consider to be your enemies, are they not? So treat them like tools of your enemies. When they seem to agree with you, it's not because the people in charge of them randomly and uncharacteristically decided to be honest for a change, it's because they're propagandizing you.

Why are they propagandizing you? To provide support for the idea of grocery store price caps, which nearly every economist agrees is terrible. Why might they want to do this? Well, for one thing, we can just look at discussion right in this thread to see an idea —

We've been over this more than once. "Pool your money and start a competitor" doesn't work when you're up against well-established companies that have massive resoures and existing logistical networks. Kroger can literally afford to put a new store on every approach to yours so that it will always be more convenient to stop there, and have enough supply strength to undercut any price you put up. That's exactly how they got so big in the first place.

Where do you usually pay higher prices, at a chain store or a locally owned store? It sounds like you haven't checked, but as much as Kroger hiked up those prices, local stores have generally hiked them up even more. So price caps come in, which store goes out of business first? It's not the one with massive resources and existing logistical networks, let me tell you.

Forbes and Bloomberg haven't seen the light on price caps because of a very specific socialist epiphany, they've seen the light that price caps can be good for the bottom line.