The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - The Problem With Capitalism
December 3rd, 2007
11:04 am

[Link]

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
The Problem With Capitalism

Let’s assume that I’m trying to get a new job. I’m kind of fucked, mainly because you’re reading me.

Seriously. Anyone who looks up “Ferrett” online, even in passing, will discover that I have littered the Internet with a wealth of profanity-laden tirades on controversial subjects. I mock abortion, I mock racial issues, I think dick jokes are funny. There aren’t a whole lot of Fortune 500 corporations that are going to look at that and go, “Wow, I need to have that time bomb ticking away in my marketing department.”

According to the Republican paradigm of capitalism, if I want a better job I will have to clean myself up for the marketplace. After all, what I have to offer isn’t what the customer wants. So I’ll have to spend days culling/altering old articles and removing them from Google…. And then take several months to write new articles in which I reinvent myself as a professional, forthcoming citizen with a new identity in order to transform my whole being for the corporation!

Or I could just lie.

The problem with the Republican view of capitalism is that they forget “lying” is the easier option. For me, I could just use my birth name, which cheerfully lists my publications on Amazon. And no one, at least for now, would be the wiser.

This wouldn’t be an issue, except that the Republicans genuinely seem to think that marketplace pressures force businesses to be honest with their customer. “If they’re not honest,” the line goes, “Then some other honest person will come along and steal their business! All you have to do is make a better product, and the world’s your oyster!”

The issue, naturally, is that you don’t have to make a better product. You have to make what looks like a better product. And the difference between “looks better” and “is better” is one that’s pretty goddamned vast at times.

Case in point: there once was a time, not too long ago, in which milk was generally taken from poxy cows, watered down to give it more bulk, and then filled up with chalk. Beef was routinely cut with sawdust, and butchered in places in places that were festering with shit and disease.

How’s your customer supposed to know all of that?

That’s a hidden cost, particularly to city-bound folks who’ve never tasted real cow milk or had alternatives to the crap they got. It’d be nice to think that the butchers would change of their own accord, but… How are the customers going to know? They don’t visit the meat-packing plants and see your chalk-dusting habits.

All of those nicey-nice habits that make things better for everyone cut into your profits. All that Wall Street cares about is profits, and if you don’t cut your milk with chalk then you’re judged as a less efficient system than those who do.

The capitalist system, in fact, encourages the businessman to cut corners and leave messes for other people to clean up later.

But wait! The myth of the capitalist system is that it runs on honesty…. So let’s assume that someone exposes you. They come in with a journalist and uncover your hideous milky activities! The public is turning away in droves!

What’s cheaper?

a) A wholesale revamp of the milk-creation process where you buy better and more expensive cows, put more actual milk into each bottle, and then ask your customers to pay the same amount for each bottle while you’re now paying substantially more on each glass…

OR:

b) Hiring a publicist to say that the conditions at that one milk-plant were deplorable, and by gosh you’re cleaning that up right now, and you make some token gestures to wait it out until the media forgets about your milk problems.

Unfortunately, the cheapest alternative is – you guessed it – lying.

The issue with the free market is that it doesn’t encourage “the best” product. It encourages the cheapest approaches that will sell. And in many ugly cases – not all, but enough – the cheapest approach is covering up the truth.

The free market makes what’s best for businesses… And that is, on the whole, a good thing. Businesses drive economies, and you want healthy economies. You want as many smart guys as possible working to make themselves rich by serving the public interest. Regulations are a necessary evil that do choke profits and drive those smart men to look elsewhere, and you should use them sparingly.

But conflating the happiness of businesses with the happiness of people is an outright lie. Businesses are there to make profit, not happiness – creating happiness is a wise tactic that smart businessmen use, and one that works much of the time, but it is not a necessity.

The myth says that competition will always produce a better product… But in unfettered capitalism, competition will often result in the guy who has a better, cheaper, and more durable product having a mysterious fire that destroys his warehouse.

(Or the bigger businesses gang up on him to drive him out of business before anyone else hears about this. You know, whatever works.)

You need government regulations to make lying as expensive as possible. Because businesses are neither good nor evil; they merely do whatever makes them the most money. Thus, the more incentives you can give so that “being truthful” is the least expensive option, the better.

That’s what I say, right here, in this journal. At least until it comes time to find another job, at which point I’ll be someone more palatable.

(Tell me I'm full of it)

Comments
 
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:07 pm (UTC)
(Link)
a) I'm not trying to find a new job. I love mine.

b) Some will no doubt take issue with the fact that I mention that businesses lie. I think that truth is important in business; sticking to your word and delivering what you say you will (and maybe a little more) is an excellent business strategy, and one that most intelligent folks use.

Where I will diverge is by saying that it's not the only method. Telling the truth is one approach, and you have to have some truth, but certainly other businesses have utilized a constant mixture of deception and truth to be quite successful.
[User Picture]
From:[info]allah_sulu
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Where I will diverge is by saying that it's not the only method.

As the saying goes, if honesty is the best policy, then dishonesty is still the second-best policy.

[User Picture]
From:[info]jarodrussell
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You need government regulations to make lying as expensive as possible.

Isn't that kind of like saying, "You need firewalls, so only the IT guy can sell credit card numbers to mobsters."
[User Picture]
From:[info]boutell
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:32 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Yep. There's one IT guy, and he's accountable to you. That's improvement over a horde of crackers.

Similarly, the government may be corrupt and on the take and whatever, but we have more control over our own government than we do over multinational corporations.

[User Picture]
From:[info]allah_sulu
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Seriously. Anyone who looks up “Ferrett” online, even in passing, will discover that I have littered the Internet with a wealth of profanity-laden tirades on controversial subjects. I mock abortion, I mock racial issues, I think dick jokes are funny.

I just told someone the other day that I was going to be in trouble when my son is old enough to Google me.
From:[info]thakil
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I was thinking about this recently, and pretty much came up with the same conclusions as you did. Historically, we can see that if companies think they can get away with it, one of them will probably do it. It actually goes further- one can balance up, whats more expensive: the fine for not being compliant, or being compliant....

There is often a fear of big government amoungst the same people who love business, but to my mind it is generally easier to make government accountable and transparent by virtue of making sure the people in power rotate round frequently thanks to elections. Obviously things are more complicated than that, but given the choice between trusting an elected representative and big business.... actually as I write this sentence I want to say neither....
[User Picture]
From:[info]cubes
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:01 pm (UTC)
(Link)
if companies think they can get away with it, one of them will probably do it

You could say the same thing about people in general, and not just the rich, the powerful, or the Republicans.

And that's why you can't trust either business or the government -- behindit all is people, many of whom want to get more for less if at all possible.
[User Picture]
From:[info]jeriendhal
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The problem with the Republican view of capitalism is that they forget “lying” is the easier option.

Which Republicans would those be? Judging from the current crop in the White House and Congress, the SOP is to only admit to truth about anything when shoved up against the wall by the Media.
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:35 pm (UTC)

Re: reading the jungle will change your life forever

(Link)
And to whine loudly when caught. Especially if they gripe about people they don't like doing the exact same thing.
[User Picture]
From:[info]sumidha
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:18 pm (UTC)

reading the jungle will change your life forever

(Link)
and that's why i'm a vegan!
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:45 pm (UTC)

Re: reading the jungle will change your life forever

(Link)
It'll only change your life if you haven't thought about how meat was made before you read it. I thought PETA was silly when I was a kid because I'd figured out a while back that cows and chickens didn't cut THEMSELVES into convenient little pieces.

Also, it's a wee bit outdated. As messy and unpleasant as your average slaughterhouse in the modern era may be, it's still a damn sight better than what Upton Sinclair observed.
[User Picture]
From:[info]jojomojo
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:24 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I think this is the first time I've agreed with you without reservation on politics ;)
[User Picture]
From:[info]fionnghuala
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:29 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Hehe I agree, and I've been lurking around a long time...
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:34 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The most hilarious idea I have EVER observed is the idea that economics and morality have anything to do with each other.

They don't. Period. Never have, never will, and arguing otherwise is pure foolishness. Capitalism depends as much on losers as winners.

This is not to say I think people should be encouraged to view money as more important than people, but economics is, however inexact, a science and it needs to offer a scientific perspective on events. Sometimes that's needed, and sometimes it shines the light on ugly realities people don't like to think about.
[User Picture]
From:[info]chayatapa
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:33 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"economics is, however inexact, a science"

Then why aren't more economists excessively rich? ;)
[User Picture]
From:[info]mojo_iv
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:37 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"The problem with the Republican view of capitalism is that they forget “lying” is the easier option."




Are you fucking KIDDING ME???

--m4
From:[info]pi216
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:41 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Replace 'forget' with 'deny'.
[User Picture]
From:[info]tybuc
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:38 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Not that I think a 100% purely capitalist system would be optimal, but you would have to be pretty naive to think that in a system in your example, the populace as a whole would be waiting sheeple lining up to buy Mr. Atlas' Health Oil Tonic. Anyone who is outside a regulated system is going to end up conditioned to requiring proof of a reliable product before they even consider making a purchase in the first place. For a good example of this, look at the current black markets for illegal items or even less regulated systems like that for MODO tickets. There are huge websites devoted to outing scammers and providing proof of reputation for other, more reliable vendors. If anything, a less regulated market would allow a freer flow of information in that regard. Consumers would definitely have to do more research as opposed to assuming a product was safe off the shelf, but I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. Having a government panel's say so sometimes provides too much of an illusion of safety without necessarily always being 100% true. Look at all the recalls we have had recently with Chinese manufactured toys with lead paint or documented cases of people getting sick off of lettuce or meat in a regulated market.

You might say there may be slightly more cases of this in a less regulated society, but making a politically (not independantly) appointed board that makes decisions on what is of good quality and what is not also opens the door for corruption and lobbying that undermines a lot of the ideals it seeks to protect. Not to mention the underlying inefficiencies that it brings and the "poor when the tax man comes by" effect by which corporations routinely get by regulations anyway.

Just to let you know, I'm not 100% opposed to regulation. I just think they should be used with a touch of common sense and not as gospel or as a "fix" to perceived problems.

More generally, if someone says there is a system that is 100% guaranteed, they are wrong and stupid. For 30 years, people have been and are still finding ways to break the Vegas casinos, which are in my opinion the closest thing to the perfect and most adaptive regulation system implemented by man. The gubment has nothing on them.
[User Picture]
From:[info]interactiveleaf
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
you would have to be pretty naive to think that in a system in your example, the populace as a whole would be waiting sheeple lining up to buy Mr. Atlas' Health Oil Tonic.

Right. That's why there are no more advertisements arriving in my Inbox offering to sell me pills that will give me a bigger penis and creams that will take my wrinkles away--it's because, since those products don't work, people stopped buying them and the companies that sold the snake oil went out of business.
[/sarcasm]

The problem with capitalism, ferrett, is the same problem that democracy and Marxist communism have--they all have, at core, an assumption that people en masse will act in their own best interest.

Any theory that starts with that as an assumption will die the horrible death it deserves, or if it does survive, it will have been *tweaked* so much it'll be almost unrecognizable as the original product.
From:[info]pi216
Date:December 3rd, 2007 04:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
“...All you have to do is make a better product, and the world’s your oyster!”

Unhappily, this is also provably (via structural sociology) not true. Or, "happily", if you want to poke a laissez-faire friend in the eye.

And lying falls under 'costless signalling'. Or, relatively. What government sanction does is rebalance the relative cost. I practice the same thing on my stepkids: it's one thing to do something you'll get fussed at for, and entirely another to LIE about whether or not you did it, which knocks off a privilege.
[User Picture]
From:[info]perich
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:00 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Shockingly enough, I agree with almost all of this.

I forget who I'm quoting when I say this, but: "an incentive to create a result is, also and always, an incentive to create the appearance of a result." When you reach the point where presentability is cheaper than honesty, presentability wins. Not because any one person is lying, but because none of the thousand people involved have any incentive to tell the unvarnished truth.

Now here's where I start hemming and hawing:

You need government regulations to make lying as expensive as possible.

Why do you presume that government agencies - staffed by career bureaucrats, political appointees and ambitious but uninformed go-getters - aren't subject to the exact same problem?
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'd make that statement narrower myself. Stricter truth-in-advertising laws would be nice. Remove the weasel-words, exaggerations, ban the asterisks, etc.
[User Picture]
From:[info]bonerici
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:03 pm (UTC)
(Link)
if you read adam smith's "The Wealth of Nations" you'll notice that he defined capitalism as requiring regulation, most notably he said that for an efficient economy you need to regulate banks and currency, and while he didn't say so directly he did say that laws should be passed according to the national interest, that is laws such as FDA laws about food. That's capitalism according to the father of capitalism.

There's another kind of capitalism that is the capitalism of Donald Rumsfeld. "Free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things." this is not the capitalism as envisioned by the fathers of capitalism, this is a sort of military sponsored anarchy.

So regulation can be a good thing, a necessary thing in fact for capitalism. But how much regulation do you want to have? If the flaw in capitalism is that you don't have enough regulation, I suppose that by your theory more regulation is better. We are both americans, so I don't think I have to argue the evils of too much regulation. it strangles the life out of any small business. The question then is how much regulation does one need in order to best serve the interests of the people?

Capitalism is all about efficiency. Pure anarchy is not capitalism. That is, when you have all the merchants of the world lying, and you can never tell if the money you have is worth anything, when you are trading 500 chickens to buy your computer because nobody trusts anyone else, that is not capitalism, that is anarchy. Capitalism requires that legislation be passed so that merchants can trust each other. Capitalism requires that those who lie to their customers are punished, severely. If someone add chalk to their milk, capitalism requires that these merchants be punish so badly they never do it again. Capitalism requires free flow of goods and services in a liquid economy, run with strict regulations and laws that give a fair chance to anyone that wants to participate. Capitalism requires a minimum of regulation, but it doesn't require the absence of it.

The complete absence of regulation is not what Adam Smith wanted, nor what a Ron Paul republican wants, because lack of laws and regulation hinders capitalism.
[User Picture]
From:[info]jarodrussell
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:18 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Nicely said!
[User Picture]
From:[info]meyerweb.com
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:04 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Geez, Ferrett, why do you hate freedom so much?

I mean, next you'll be saying we can't trust the religious to be saintly.
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:42 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Strangely enough, that was the other essay I was considering today.
From:[info]sclerotic_rings
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This also hits exactly why journalism is generally so bad no matter where you go. The impetus isn't on covering the news but on making a maximum profit. It really sucks that you don't give a fart in a high wind about the latest Anna Nicole Smith autopsy report, but since the 11 percent of CNN viewers who actually give a damn are much more likely to respond to CNN's advertising than you will, you're forced to watch the latest surveys of her last gynecological exam with the rest of us.

This also explains why you simply can't trust entertainment news, because it's based upon saleability, not actual news. I'm not just talking about blatant quote whores like Gene Shalit or Pete Travers, who have no problems with hyping the worst pieces of shit so long as they get publicity junkets. I'm talking about reportage that's blatantly and obviously false because someone's publicist figured that the lie gets more news time than the truth. Go look up the real story behind Ozzy Osbourne's "biting the head off a bat" tale from 1982, and note that you still get music writers that tell that story as if it's true.

Of course, this also offers a horrendous indictment of the quality both of general reporters, who are in even more denial of the value of a journalism degree than their cohorts with an English degree, and of the people editing them. If you're any damn good at writing or if you have the slightest bit of talent at news reportage, you wouldn't be wasting your time at the local weekly newspaper for more than a year or so while you're working your way up, and only the really incompetent remain at daily or weekly newspapers if they could make more money somewhere else. Likewise, far too many editors, and I speak from experience, stay in their spots in order to exact revenge on all of the people who picked on them in junior high, and otherwise good articles constantly get butchered by vindictive editors who can't handle the fact people don't read their papers for their editing abilities. (To listen to some of the temper tantrums I've faced from editors who blew gaskets because their freelancers were getting reader mail instead of them, you'd think that they honestly believed that they deserved fan mail and groupies. Or, as I put it about one editor with whom I had the singular joy of being rewritten on a regular basis, "Having Fat Elvis's physique, Buddy Holly's glasses, and Phil Collins's hair will not make you a rock star.") So long as they're able to continue their personal vendettas in a way that maximizes the number of readers, even if it's readership that makes regular threats of physical violence, nobody's going to say anything. It's only when the hate mail stops that anyone gets worried, because that could mean that nobody's paying attention, and that's really bad as far as the advertisers are concerned.
[User Picture]
From:[info]kmg_365
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:22 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Seriously. Anyone who looks up "Ferrett" online, even in passing, will discover that I have littered the Internet with a wealth of profanity-laden tirades on controversial subjects

If you were applying for a job at a Fortune 500 company, would your resume say Ferrett at the top, or would it say your given name? I know that isn't the point of your entry, I'm just genuinely curious.

All that Wall Street cares about is profits, and if you don’t cut your milk with chalk then you’re judged as a less efficient system than those who do.

You might want to expand that statement a bit to say "all that most companies care about is profits", because Wall Street most likely couldn't give two shits about private companies.
[User Picture]
From:[info]the_xtina
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
And the difference between “looks better” and “is better” is one that’s pretty goddamned vast at times.

How does this jibe with your definition of "better", from earlier on?
[User Picture]
From:[info]practicallyfame
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I'm a free-market-happy libertarian, personally, but I often acknowledge these details when debating within my party... I'm glad you brought them up.

One of the big idealistic issues, though, is that business is so much BIGGER lately. Back in the day if you had two or three LOCAL suppliers of milk, despite what tricks the suppliers pulled, you could just take a sample of each, and the one who produced a better product would get your business, and chances are, the people around you agreed, thus, the other suppliers would be forced to better their product, or cater to the penny-pincher who'll buy their inferior product for less. Not perfect, no, but if someone's willing to pay less for a lower-quality product, that's their right... and the success of the higher-quality product's business would probably ALSO lower their cost, eventually causing the other producer to go out of business or make better milk.

When a town or city of people made the difference for a business, the free-market could work.

The world's a bit bigger now, so though I agree with free-market economics, there definitely must be some regulations in place - when your customer base is a nation, not a town, it takes a lot more customers to complain about the quality of your milk and force you to make it better. Also, when your company gets HELP from the government because one of its board members happens to also be a Senator, and they can pass regulation legislation that makes it harder for your competitors to work against you, that screws up the basic checks and balance system that the free-market is based on.

I stand by the belief that competition, in general, produces more efficient results, and ideally, better ones. However, there are lots of issues with that system, some of which you've identified. So what's your solution? ;)
[User Picture]
From:[info]directordale
Date:December 3rd, 2007 05:59 pm (UTC)
(Link)

Nicely said and this is one of the reasons I don't support "tort reform."

I will admit that my dad is a trial lawyer and makes his income by representing plaintiffs in personal injury, medical malpractice, pharmautical litigation, and employement discrimination cases. I am considering doing the same.

However fear of lawsuits work as a form of regulation because they make corporations more likely to behave and follow regulations and the law. The reason that business lobbyists and their GOP allies are crazy for "tort reform" because it takes away punishment for misbehaviour. You can cut corners and ignore regulations if there is no real punishment.

However knowing that a fault in your product or poor treatment of employees can cost you millions of dollars or more. That gets people to behave.
[User Picture]
From:[info]practicallyfame
Date:December 3rd, 2007 06:02 pm (UTC)

also...

(Link)
The myth says that competition will always produce a better product… But in unfettered capitalism, competition will often result in the guy who has a better, cheaper, and more durable product having a mysterious fire that destroys his warehouse.

Ikea is better, cheaper, and my experience has been that it lasts (the bookcase 3 feet from me is 16 years old and has traveled 6000 miles. Still holds my books, still looks good). Why are they still in business? Maybe it's cause they're Swedish.

;)
[User Picture]
From:[info]particle_man6
Date:December 3rd, 2007 07:34 pm (UTC)

contrariwise

(Link)
My Ikea furniture is crappy and more likely to fall apart with every move.
[User Picture]
From:[info]twfarlan
Date:December 3rd, 2007 06:16 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Out of curiosity, how do you jive this with the proposition that successful advertising is one of the characteristics that makes one product better than another?
[User Picture]
From:[info]krinndnz
Date:December 3rd, 2007 08:23 pm (UTC)
(Link)
This might have already been noted, but your point is part of the same reason that throwing psychological tests at entry-level retail employees is a terrible-ass idea. The biggest incentive is for people to lie, an incentive that will relentlessly continue if you actually take a retail job. Conditioning people to lie to their employers is not a particularly good idea.
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 3rd, 2007 09:02 pm (UTC)
(Link)
I disagree: I think it sets the proper tone for the job, as I've never worked a retail job that didn't involve lying through my teeth.

Me, I'm opposed to those tests because they're so easy to spoof. Let's see, how do I answer "I regularly kill hookers and bury them in shallow graves by the interstate?"
[User Picture]
From:[info]force_of_will
Date:December 3rd, 2007 08:34 pm (UTC)

Truth as Exposure

(Link)
http://www.amazon.com/Critique-Cynical-Reason-History-Literature/dp/0816615861

The more we know, the more we realize lying works and a sickening dilemma sinks in. This is the current state of man. Of course it goes back to the original Cynics where Diogenese of Sinope lived in a barrel and barked as a dog. For only that stripped down version of life would be "true".
[User Picture]
From:[info]bookkeeper
Date:December 3rd, 2007 11:55 pm (UTC)
(Link)
The constant drumbeat of tales of Enron and wistful reminiscing on Upton Sinclair combine to create this boogeyman in the minds of people: "The Business". From Robber Barons to Big Oil, we have constantly sought to demonize the successful businessman when, if criminal charges and lawsuits are any indication, the vast majority of businesspeople are at least civic minded enough not to take actions that lead to dead babies in the streets.

The point is that they are people. If your supposition is that the free-market capitalism incentivizes lying, we must presume that, among smart businesspeople, fraud is the norm in any area that is not punitively regulated. Moreover, we must assume that any businessperson with an accountant who can make it cheaper to get busted for fraud than to be honest is also acting fraudulently. I think you're overlooking, possibly deliberately, the impact of loss of trust to a business. No, it's not going to kill a massive corporation (not immediately, at any rate), but I would go so far as to say that the vast majority of businesspeople are honest and law-abiding and not simply because they fear the law - they understand that trust is a component of customer service and find that it is, in the long run, simpler and cheaper to be honest than to cut corners and hope no one notices.

Marketplace pressures can push towards honesty - in a transparent market. My biggest problem with disclosure regulations is that, like most regulations, they insulate a company by setting the bare minimum of what is necessary. If all I have to tell you is what is listed on the state's law, that's all you'll get and I can say that I've complied with the law. Transparent and open communication has been removed as a competitive measure because a company can say, "Well, I comply with the law. What's the problem?"

If all those nicey-nice habits were unpalatable in a capitalist system, Stonybrook Farm and Chipotle wouldn't be able to render them into marketing tools. Hell, Al Gore's raking in millions on a fund that sells carbon offsets. This may be the lowest utility product in the history of man, but it sells, so capitalism blesses it.

Lying does, from time to time, work and cause havoc when (or if) it is discovered. I just don't think it's quite as prevalent or endemic as you seem to.
[User Picture]
From:[info]theferrett
Date:December 4th, 2007 12:03 am (UTC)
(Link)
I think you're overlooking, possibly deliberately, the impact of loss of trust to a business.

I very specifically am not. Trust is important. But as I said in my footnote, trust is merely one way to run a business. Most businesses engage in some level of deception, even if that level is as low-grade as "Budweiser is made of awesome ingredients" or "This spring water is pure and from foreign lands."

You overlook it, but it's there.
[User Picture]
From:[info]astraydragon
Date:December 3rd, 2007 11:56 pm (UTC)

"Dick Will Make You Slap Somebody"

(Link)
Think dick jokes are funny? This lady takes the power of the penis all too seriously...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdGJxI6LrX4

Enjoy :)
[User Picture]
From:[info]thetathx1138
Date:December 4th, 2007 01:37 am (UTC)

Re: "Dick Will Make You Slap Somebody"

(Link)
It's the Kommandant! I wondered where she went.
The Ferrett's Domain Powered by LiveJournal.com