Hacker News Reader

Comment by Frost1x | Hacker News Reader

In a lot of respects, I find modern business tactics skewing ever further towards being more and more harmful to society at large for the sake of business capital owners. Let's not forget the social contract and that we, as a society, allow businesses to operate while they remain beneficial to society.

I'm not saying remove capitalism but some modifications of our current state of capitalism are certainly in order. Perhaps this is tighter or different regulatory constraints, changes to some core principles (e.g. Citizen's United, business rights as "people", etc.). I'm not saying I have the answers or the quick examples mentionrd are the core issues, just that the future doesn't look great if current trends continue. We need to start a productive conversation and elect representatives willing to be a voice in that conversation to explore and try improvement options.

View on HN

That's exactly it. "Corporations are people, my friend", when they need to pump an insane amount of money into our election process, but when the time comes to pay for blunders and crimes - nah uh, don't touch the innocent corporation, you can't put it on trial, like a ... person.

Is this a genie that can be bottled back up? Lets say you enact these magical regulations. Will the corporations stick around or will they focus on other countries where they have more clout? Similarly, will they use international levers of pressure to "fix" the issues any one country poses?

Mmm. Good question.

Personally, I don't see the rest of the world as willing to indulge in that type of regulation havening. Besides which, where else are you going to find the combination of hypermodern physical infrastructure, relatively stable political/judicial systems, and the fiscal infrastructure to support these types of businesses all bundled together?

It seems to end up being a puck-two sort of thing otherwise, and if they did move out, they'd likely have to instantly write off the American market, as such a drastic measure would not go unnoticed. It starts to reek of nationalistic pride as the insurance policy, but history didn't build itself up without such a thing in the first place; so I see it as foolish to discount the mechanism moving forward.

One can only hope the cost in blood to maintain such security won't have to be repeated however.

> Is this a genie that can be bottled back up? Lets say you enact these magical regulations. Will the corporations stick around or will they focus on other countries where they have more clout? Similarly, will they use international levers of pressure to "fix" the issues any one country poses?

If you try to bottle the genie back up, you'll have to work all those levers simultaneously or you'll have the problems you describe. The new set of regulations would also need to curtail the ability of corporations to move to avoid regulations and limit the kinds of political pressure they can apply, for instance. Otherwise it'll be like closing one barn door while leaving the other wide open.

We've gone so far down the road in one direction that we may have to turn around with a shock. It it's probably too late for some kinds of small, incrementalist course corrections to be effective.

It can be. As bad as it seems today, the Gilded Age had even worse income inequality. The part that's frightening is what it lead to, and I'm afraid to say that the country seems to be going down exactly the same path as certain countries in Europe did around that time (rise of fascism, nationalist leaders lying through their teeth to secure power by any means, erosion of democratic norms and institutions).

I live in a city that conservatives have been claiming for years will drive away all business, real estate development, and wealthy individuals with our progressive taxes and regulations.

Yet every year our economy grows and our quality of life improves.

If businesses leave, they're the type of business you wouldn't want around anyway.

Thank you personally for allowing corporations to exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com