Earlier quoted context omitted.
First you need to prove to me the average company is less competent and aligned with people than the average government.
Once I get a vote on board membership for every company operating in my country, I will happily participate in that discussion.
Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
71–80 of 90 posts
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
Man, I came in instinctively wanting to argue the opposite point, but reading your thought in this clear way made me second guess myself. You are simply right and I have no _real_ arguments against it (maybe some ideology, but thats not useful), so I changed my mind. Thanks!
Well, if a merger is proposed, that's because management has a credible argument that it's a boost for the two companies involved. Say 1%. If one of those is a >$100B company, then that's a $1B boost for the overall economy. If you assume that a $1B boost for the economy is an argument in favour, then all big mergers are supported by credible arguments. (Which may turn out to be wrong in hindsight, of course, but tha…
I'm just adding a thought to your point.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#73I mean, I'm not exactly a fan of brexit, but my God, playing on EU vs UK sentiments is worse than bad taste. It's exactly what is wrong with society: fuels hate for commercial reasons.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#74We need to go beyond stopping mergers. Any company which sees itself as large or powerful enough to make unveiled threats against a national economy needs to be broken up. For ultra-large companies (e.g. any company with a market cap over $100B at the moment), default-deny should be the position for any mergers from this point - the burden of proof should be on them to show why the merge would not only be non-harmful…
If CIA wants to tap a foreign dictator, I'm sure they can make a friendly call to some office software maker and ask for a one-off. Embargoes carry so much more pressure if there is no alternative to Made in USA. And so on.
Other countries are generally not in a position to wield this power but totally want to, or recognise the risk and pay through the nose to mitigate it. Look at France, which has built a complete domestic defense industry just to be independent of the USA.
You may argue this power is misused, and that's probably true, but in principle it is a nice-to-have for states, and thus societies, and probably the thing that keeps America birthing decacorns despite the costs.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Governments are better. But are they? > Prove it. Two things can be true. One can think that only the state should have hundreds of billions of dollars in cash, not people, organizations or corporations. The same person can fear the government as well, and actively oppose virtually any government control over anything. (Especially if it is spectacularly dangerous and has no benefit.)
We're not discussing a "both ways" situation here. The premise was that big companies should be broken down, while countries should be kept monolithic, strictly overpowering them. I'm asking... prove to me that governments vs corporations are a kind of conflict where governments are always correct. Because if they ARE NOT... then the idea "we must break up any company before it can even talk to us" is bullshit, isn't…
Government is far (far!) from perfect, but at least it aspires in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of the population, and so by definition what government will tend towards).
Companies are beholden to no-one but the markets. Markets are demonstrably not aligned with what is best for the populace, but rather what is best for owners of capital. We can't change that property of companies easily, but we can, in theory, hold government to a higher standard than "do whatever the highest bidder says". So, I'd like government to stay at the top of the tree.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#76Earlier quoted context omitted.
Once I get a vote on board membership for every company operating in my country, I will happily participate in that discussion.
Why on the board ? Are you a minister right now in your government, by any chance, to make this comparable? Are you a represented in the parliament/congress? Or maybe you don't understand shareholders, in fact, vote? That's funny.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Take a country like Russia where only what Putin says matters, everyone else is his pawn, even if on paper they may be billionaires holding big companies. Is that an improvement over having genuine corporate voices making their point? Russia is not a democracy so your premise is flawed from the start.
Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're not discussing a "both ways" situation here. The premise was that big companies should be broken down, while countries should be kept monolithic, strictly overpowering them. I'm asking... prove to me that governments vs corporations are a kind of conflict where governments are always correct. Because if they ARE NOT... then the idea "we must break up any company before it can even talk to us" is bullshit, isn't…
Someone has to sit at the top of the tree, making decisions whose impact has to be accepted by the people below. Government is far (far!) from perfect, but at least it aspires in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of the population, and so by definition what government will tend towards). Companies are beholden to no-one but the markets. Markets are demonstrably not aligned with what is be…
Someone has to sit near the top of the tree, making decisions whose impact has to be accepted by the shareholders, employees and customers of a company, and communicated to the governments of the world. Not all products and services can be implemented by a small mom-and-pop shop. Some things need scale. And not only that.
Corporations are far (far!) from perfect, but at least they aspire in the right direction (where "right" is defined by the zeitgeist of those people they service above, and so by definition what behavior will a corporation tend towards).
Governments are beholden to no-one but their sponsors and shallow populist trends they use to rise to power by exploiting the large distance between voter and representative, often nothing in common to discuss, so the debate is kept low-level, basic, and full of the same lies repeated over and over again to slightly different audiences every 4 years or so. Politicians are demonstrably not aligned with what is best for the populace, but rather what is best for them clinging to power and servicing their behind-the-scene sponsors (or in some countries, public lobby). We can't change that property of governments easily, but we can, in theory, hold companies to a higher standard than "do whatever the highest bidder of our party says". We can vote with our money, and vote with our speech, and boycott a product or a service much more easily than we can outvote an incumbent party or a law, when they betray us. As we see in France, protests do nothing. Big once we have aligned corporations to us, they can represent our voice in front of large, cumbersome governments, and bring balance back to us. So, I'd like corporations to stay near the top of the tree, and not make this a government autocratic monopoly of control.
P.S.: BTW when you say "companies are beholden to nothing but the markets..." I hope you realize... we're the markets. Not any less than we're the voters.
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh yes it, they have elections and everything. "But it's just superficial, not real". Well, let's look at France now. People elected someone, and he flipped on them, and their protested. What's the end result, in this democracy? President 1, people 0.
Are you really comparing a representative democracy where the currently elected officials will probably be ousted in a few years with a place where protesting gets you thrown ostentatiously out of a window, to prove a point to everyone?
Re: Microsoft in furious attack on UK as major gaming deal blocked
#80Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is not an average company. And government is only as good as the people let them be. Corporations are only as good as the regulation and competition. In other word they are completely different from each other.
You used different words, but describe two entities in a very similar situation. Except a government is larger and essentially held hostage by the two or so major incumbent parties that have settled into every developed democracy. If people want to make the situation better, what are they supposed to do, exactly? How did the protests in France go? Citizens destroyed some private property. And that was it. The governm…
People choose which ever party or candidate should represent them in the government, they can at any point decide to vote for new candidates or parties.
Protests are not a legalislative form of action but a means for citizens to raise their concerns.
Microsofts value does not dictate its power, power dictate power.
They got multiple industries under their thumb and have been caught trying to subvert and or destroy competition.
You're welcome to try and create a country where violence, territory and military is democratized/privatized it doesn't change the point that we choose to live in countries where the social contract is that the government has monopoly over certain goods.