Comment by Cheer2171 2 days ago
To an MBA type, addictive drugs are the best products. They reveal people's latent preferences for being desperately poor and dependent. They see a grandma pouring her life savings into a gambling app and think "How can I get in on this?"
The non-biological term would be "publicly-traded corporation". If anything their behavior is worse when there is no controlling founder.
It's called life.
All life grows and consumes as much as it can. It's what makes it life. "Control" happens when there's more life contesting the same limited resources, and usually involves starvation, but if the situation persists on evolutionary timescales, then some life adapts to proactively limit growth. Then, if some of that adapted life unadapts itself, we call that "cancer", which I think is what you were going for.
To be fair, businesses should assume that customers actually "want" what they create demand for. In the case of misleading or dangerously addictive products, regulation should fall to government, because that's the only actor that can prevent a race to the bottom.
Because all people everywhere are psychopaths who will stab you for $5 if they can get away with it? If you take that attitude, why even go to "work" or run a "business"? It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
> It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
which is exactly what the law of the jungle is. And guess who sits at the top within that regime?
Humans would devolve back into that, if not for the violence enforcement from the state. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the state to make sure regulations are sound to prevent the stab-stab-stab, not the responsibility of the individual to not take advantage of a situation that would have been advantageous to take.
This is gross; I would not want to live in a society of these kinds of people.
I'll indulge your straw man because it's actually pretty good at illustrating my point. 99.9% of people are not psychopaths. But you only need .1% of people to be psychopaths. In a world where you get $5 and no threat of prosecution for stabbing people, you can bet that there will be extremely efficient and effective stabbing companies run by those psychopaths. Even normal people who don't like stabbing others would see the psychopaths getting rich and think to themselves "well, everyone's getting stabbed anyway, I might as well make some money too". That's what a race to the bottom is.
And that's why the government regulates stabbing.
In the behavioral science (of which economics should be a sub-field of) this is called perverse intensives. A core-feature of capitalism, is that if you don‘t abandon your morals and maximize your profits at somebody else’s expense, you will soon be out-competed by those who will.
*incentives
I tried to let it stand because it was clear what you meant, but ultimately could not.
> Because all people everywhere are psychopaths who will stab you for $5 if they can get away with it?
Not all people everywhere, but most successful businesspeople.
> It'd be so much more efficient to just stab-stab-stab and take the money directly.
It isn't though? If you do that then you get locked up and lose the money, so the smart psychopaths go into business instead.
I think its more subtle; they fight for regulations they deem reasonable and against those they deem unreasonable. Anything that curtails growth of the business is unreasonable.