This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
If you mean company in the sense of "for-profit corporation," then I think the answer is pretty straightforward: Companies exist to (1) encourage people to invest in business ventures by offering them limited liability; and (2) offer people a convenient, off-the-rack method of organizing a partnership.
If you mean company in the sense of "firm," I think it's also pretty straightforward: Companies exist because there are synergies in having a bunch of people working together on some joint project.
I'm not sure why you switched from just "companies" to "companies and markets," so I will focus on companies. Ok, suppose a company is faced with a choice between (1) maximizing shareholder value; and (2) maximizing consumption. For example, perhaps the company produces some luxury good or service and there is a clear choice between (1) selling limited amounts at a fat markup; and (2) selling large amounts with paper thin margins. Assuming the math clearly shows that choice (1) is far more profitable, I would expect the company to take that choice. (Obviously, things are rarely so clear-cut in the real world, but in a situation which really was that clear, a company CEO who chose (2) could expect to be sued by the investors.)
Of course, in theory society could step in and more or less redefine the purpose of companies. Seize the means of production, if you will. I think that's what you are basically arguing here, and I don't necessarily disagree with you. Logically it makes sense that once mankind's final invention takes place, there's no more need to encourage private capital investment. Perhaps This Time it's Different.
More options
Context Copy link