![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
weswilsonHere's an interesting little article about how criminalizing online gambling is good for eBay... Ah, corporate self-interest... how I detest thee.
weswilsonweswilson
Page Summary
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
scarlete.livejournal.com - (no subject)- (Anonymous) - Corporate self interest???
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2006-06-08 07:17 pm (UTC)Gary has an online poker budget. :O
Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 01:10 pm (UTC)PayPal would be much better off if the government had let the market do its thing years ago. If we're pointing fingers here, point your big middle one at the Feds.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 03:09 pm (UTC)The Feds? Sure I fucking blame the feds. But Americans HIRE these trite little terds to do exactly what they are doing: make moral decisions for the terrified little red-staters. It's their JOB, as REQUESTED by the fear-mongers who dictate that a friggin' estate tax is worse for America than a social liberal. So please don't cruise anonymously into my journal bitching about the feds when you probably voted a republican ticket in the first place. The whole right-wing anti-federalism argument has proven to be nothing but a ploy for getting into power. You're cashed out.
As for my original post, which deserved a real reply rather than a dogmatic spew of rhetoric, I will state a more in-depth comment:
The very idea that eBay is throwing its towel into the political ring is foul. Goverments are meant to be the voice of the people, gathered as a force to trump other sources of power who would exploit people with their combined wealth and influence. Goverments are there to stop entities who would destroy free markets and replace them with fiscal oligarchies who would limit the choices we have in a free society. I think it is for eBay to use goverment to squash its competitors rather than producing a good service and crushing others under their constructive ideals.
But modern corporate self-interest doesn't involve competition. It's best for the stock-holders to remove opponents rather than remain in competition. Thus, we end up seeing litigation-based market-models... where the company who can't defend itself in court is crushed... where the company who can't get senators in pockets is lost... and where capital hill lobbying is a major part of the budget.
Do I blame the feds for helping create this quagmire? Hell yes... but I also blame the american people for elevating corporate behavior to that of modern-day saints. We don't have healthy market models in society today... and until I start seeing some, I'm going to preach out against those who would manipulate the american people and limit their choices.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 03:10 pm (UTC)Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 04:05 pm (UTC)Squash the competition by using government's ability to rule by the gun. That's the ticket.
Although, corporate "self interest" is nothing bad IMO. You look out for you and yours.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 04:50 pm (UTC)What is truly best for me and mine is to kill everyone around me and take their shit. If anyone tries to stop me, I take their shit. Anarchy may be the libertarian ideal, but I'm not a big fan of it. I see no positive rationale for razing playing fields. Mankind is not elevated by this kind of self-serving bullshit. We have to evolve past a necessity to go up by knocking everyone else down... we have to promote competition.
True competition... the state that creates the most ideal arenas for evolution and development... is not a monopolistic environment. It serves the world and mankind best when competitors stay in the game. The more entities that compete for finite resources, the more innovation we see, the more creativity in the struggle, and the more energy spent towards making things better. But sadly, we are growing past that.
It used to be that markets were considered BROKEN if there were significant profits being made. Profits, according to all my econ classes, are a sign that competition is limited, barriers to entry are too high, and the public is punished through their pocketbooks. MODERN models seem to show that profits are REQUIRED. There is no room for the creation of an industry unless that industry generates exceeding levels of growth. We've got a batch of spoiled estate kids, throwing around their deceased daddy's dollars in a fashion DETREMENTAL to the market.
You might say, "Profits inspire people to enter a market." True, but modern multinational corporations are keen to this game, and should they get even a hint that something is upwind of them, they rally their legal departments for the initial barrage of litigation to prevent competition. If that fails, they drop prices and use the might of their market share to divert any losses with cash influx from other markets. If the predicted competition isn't wiped out there, they'll find some other manner to keep their enemies out of the market... as long as they never have to actually compete. This serves no one but the investors... and sadly, in my book, this kind of self-interest is detremental to mankind.
With that in mind, the goverment is instituted by the people to prevent this kind of market manipulation. They work currently as the TOOL of the corporations, but in my mind, the goverment should be the enemy. Goverment is the might of the people to rebel against those who would enslave them. We may have failed to use it as such, and currently we are suffering for it. And yes, government rules best that rules least... but corporations should fear when the american people pull out that weapon... And I'm sure you'll agree that it is the right of the people to protect themselves.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 05:22 pm (UTC)Bzzt. Wrong. Try again.
As to the rest, I think you misinterpreted what I said.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 06:20 pm (UTC)I'd actually be willing to bet that you and I can find a metric ton of common ground, I'm sorry if it appeared I was stereotyping your beliefs.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 06:45 pm (UTC)You're right; I know we'd have a lot of common ground.
Squashing the competition by getting in good with the legislators and passing bills against your competition for no other reason than to give yourself - basically - a monopoly is a bad thing. Now, if your product is SO good that all of the competitors fall by the wayside, that monopoly's not a bad thing, IMO, but it can turn into one though.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-09 07:03 pm (UTC)My main problem with monopolies is that barriers to entry in modern markets are so high, that once a monopoly is founded, it seems increasingly difficult for new products to enter that market without some kind of industrial coup.
For instance, let's use Microsoft as our monopoly. Suppose I had some really, really great ideas for an operating system... and could hire some programmers to make it happen... and could produce a first rate operating system. I think my plan ends there. Microsoft has such a tremendous code database that it would take me fifteen times longer to create an OS from scratch as it would for MS to simply alter its code to usurp my ideas. I cannot imagine any logical scenario for Microsoft being challenged in the OS department that does not include a small country's GNP being utilized or a concentrated effort on the behalf of people to topple the giant. Both seem like a poor example of optimum market effectiveness... and I'm not sure what to do about it. The idea of Windows 95 code becoming public domain appeals to me. With it in hand, I think someone could begin to hack away at Windows... but till then, I just don't see it happening.
I think this happens in other markets as well... Imagine trying to start up LG... or Motorola... I can't see any way to do it without purchasing an existing company or divesting a piece of an existing company.
And without competition, I just don't see our markets going anyplace good.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-12 01:35 pm (UTC)Regarding your response to my post and others posted later in this thread, it appears that you think that once some type of innovation is made it should quickly, if not instantly, be available to all competition in order to level the field or else a company is bad and evil. Forget patents, copyrights, and any underlying research that goes into making an innovation and bringing it to market. Once it is developed and out there, a company is obviously bad for trying to protect itself and its technology just because you have to pay what you perceive is too much in order to legally use it. How many "questionable" copies of Windows are you currently running?
The government clearly went after PayPal prior to the eBay acquisition. You seemed to agree with this government action as you did not reply to this point from my original post. Since the government was giving trouble to an evil big company, I guess this is OK in your logic whereas it's now very bad that the evil big company align itself with current government action because it may gain a competitive advantage instead of a competitive disadvatantage this time around whereas it enjoyed a disadvantage previously. Long story short here, if you think that our economy is a free economy, your economics book is out of date. Big business has not been "free market" in the way you describe, EVER, regardless of what you think you've been taught. Welcome to the world.
All forms of IP protection ("intellectual property" for those caught up in the networking mindset) ultimately get back to the government (patents, copyrights, trademarks, etc.) one way or another. Economic markets are not independent of the goverment - especially where IP is involved or where the "market" is legally questionable (gambling in this case). Based on your responses, I think your IP views are much more in line with those of the Chinese government - which is "anything goes." Why do you think the Chinese are this way? Because they have no significant IP of their own to protect, it is all "borrowed" from elsewhere. Software packages costing US$10,000 domestically are sold open market in established stores for less than US$5 (not US$5000, but US$5). I have heard about it, seen it, held it in my hands. It is despicable and is what would happen domestically if the government was not involved.
The Feds limit competition all the time through anti-trust legistion, IP protection mentioned earlier, and market-targeted legistion towards a specific business type.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-12 03:24 pm (UTC)You are incorrect in your assumption that I think intellectual property shouldn't be defendable. You are incorrect in thinking that I demand a level playing field for all competitors in all markets. You are incorrect in thinking that I find it appropriate that other governments don't help defend our patents. You are incorrect in thinking I expect prices to be low due to my own perceptions of low and high. Your efforts to paint me as a naive enemy to the real american market is a straw man.
If you would like to return to the original discussion, please let me know.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-13 02:09 pm (UTC)Suggest you re-read my original post and your response where you venture into estate taxes, my voting preferences, right-wing anti-federalism, litigation-based market models (we were talking legislation here, not litigation, oh wait, you did mix the two together and just called them all litigation - my bad, I guess the word litigation just sounds k00ler).
After looking back over earlier posts (way earlier), this has been your typical mode of operation. If someone challenges your idea, you scream "right-wing scum" rather than trying to have an original thought to go forward with the discussion.
Not worth my time to go further.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-13 03:39 pm (UTC)So please don't cruise anonymously into my journal bitching about the feds when you probably voted a republican ticket in the first place.
Immediately after that, I stated that right-wing anti-federalism had proven to be a bait-and-switch, but that was in reference to the party in power, and I only stated you PROBABLY voted for them. I don't call people "right-wing scum"... I only insinuate they may have been duped by some.
You are welcome to correct me if I am mistaken about your beliefs (e.g. that you probably voted republican), as I have tried to correct you with the assumptions you made in the previous reply.
Re: Corporate self interest???
Date: 2006-06-13 03:39 pm (UTC)