Tyler’s new book Big Business is out next week. I haven’t read it – won’t get access until you do. But in an excerpt he just posted from his final chapter, Tyler considers a big question I’ve pondered before:
Microsoft's loss of control of the individual user IT space was partly down to the fact that it couldn't be trusted. There was a perpetual effort to force unnecessary upgrading. Trust failures lead to market failures when competition is there. Extra trust, say in Quaker artisans, leads to additional market share as in 19th C UK chocolate manufacturers.
I micro trust corporations, the contents of the bag will be what is written on the label manly because I know I'm not the only on who will be checking. I definitely do not trust corporations not to take advantages of cognitive biases or asymmetry of information, but that's not our main problem. That rather it taxing business income. This is a very inferior way of taxing the consumption of owners.
Corporate "trustworthiness" comes about because of competition or the external forces of government regulation or lawsuits. McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's work hard to make the most pleasing burger for the buck. You may not like fast-food burger companies, but you can trust that they take food safety very seriously. If there were no competition, plaintiff lawyers, or regulation, Monopoly Burgers, Inc. would be serving up e.coli-laced sawdust patties and blaming their customers for not washing their hands enough. The people at GM and Ford must factor in the benefits of avoiding lawsuits when pricing out ignition lock and gas tank designs. People died, but the huge lawsuits resulted in safer cars. Without lawsuits, competition, or government regulation, we'd still be driving exploding Ford Pintos, only without emission controls, seatbelts, or airbags. "Corporate ethics" is an oxymoron. They only put up with the hassle of simulating decent and correct behaviour if doing so keeps them from incurring harsh penalties.
A corporation may face competition and markets, but may also be run by the same flawed human beings we all know enough to distrust, and often that trust can be exploited to take advantage us, so trust should never be blanket, but earned every day. Distrust comes at a cost, but trust often comes at an even higher cost, trust but verify. Verification may be expensive, but failure to verify will lead to violation of that trust.
Simple question. Does expeeiexpe working for corporations typically cause people to trust them more or less, e.g. do the people who know more systematically trust them more or less?
I would suggest that priors comment is a straightforward and quite obvious example of the point you are making. Not just distrust, but textbook prejudicial thinking.
Really? What about FIFA, Volkswagen, Wells Fargo, AIG, Enron, 1MDB, etc. etc. Are these instances of business fraud rare outliers or just the few unlucky bastards who got caught?
Microsoft's loss of control of the individual user IT space was partly down to the fact that it couldn't be trusted. There was a perpetual effort to force unnecessary upgrading. Trust failures lead to market failures when competition is there. Extra trust, say in Quaker artisans, leads to additional market share as in 19th C UK chocolate manufacturers.
I micro trust corporations, the contents of the bag will be what is written on the label manly because I know I'm not the only on who will be checking. I definitely do not trust corporations not to take advantages of cognitive biases or asymmetry of information, but that's not our main problem. That rather it taxing business income. This is a very inferior way of taxing the consumption of owners.
Individual humans are also made more trustworthy by competition and legal threats.
Corporate "trustworthiness" comes about because of competition or the external forces of government regulation or lawsuits. McDonald's, Burger King, and Wendy's work hard to make the most pleasing burger for the buck. You may not like fast-food burger companies, but you can trust that they take food safety very seriously. If there were no competition, plaintiff lawyers, or regulation, Monopoly Burgers, Inc. would be serving up e.coli-laced sawdust patties and blaming their customers for not washing their hands enough. The people at GM and Ford must factor in the benefits of avoiding lawsuits when pricing out ignition lock and gas tank designs. People died, but the huge lawsuits resulted in safer cars. Without lawsuits, competition, or government regulation, we'd still be driving exploding Ford Pintos, only without emission controls, seatbelts, or airbags. "Corporate ethics" is an oxymoron. They only put up with the hassle of simulating decent and correct behaviour if doing so keeps them from incurring harsh penalties.
A corporation may face competition and markets, but may also be run by the same flawed human beings we all know enough to distrust, and often that trust can be exploited to take advantage us, so trust should never be blanket, but earned every day. Distrust comes at a cost, but trust often comes at an even higher cost, trust but verify. Verification may be expensive, but failure to verify will lead to violation of that trust.
Simple question. Does expeeiexpe working for corporations typically cause people to trust them more or less, e.g. do the people who know more systematically trust them more or less?
I would suggest that priors comment is a straightforward and quite obvious example of the point you are making. Not just distrust, but textbook prejudicial thinking.
I said more trustworthy, not perfectly trustworthy.
Fixed; thanks.
Really? What about FIFA, Volkswagen, Wells Fargo, AIG, Enron, 1MDB, etc. etc. Are these instances of business fraud rare outliers or just the few unlucky bastards who got caught?
they they --> than they