Hacker News Reader

Comment by jerojero | Hacker News Reader

I don't think they ever thought they could "get away with it forever", it's more like: we have an opportunity to make a lot of money now before people get sick of it and legislation is pushed. That's how big businesses operate, they will always push the line because it is most profitable in the short term. The long term for them is made up of ups and downs on an upwards curve, they push the line (up) get pushed down (down) but hopefully they are still a little above where they started. And so on.

Greediness is not a flaw of the system, it is a core value of it.

View on HN

Nah, I can come up with countless examples of companies making decisions to maximize their market cap over the next 0-2 years, that are obviously going to have a huge negative impact over the next 5-10 years (a much greater negative impact than was gained in the short term).

Serious long term thinking by those running companies (on the time-scale of 7-10+ years) is extraordinarily rare and represents a massive competitive advantage for those who actually do it (almost no one).

Companies do not adequately select for or reward long term thinking behavior by CEOs and upper management. Mostly you only see this coming from company founders who actually have enough of a stake and political capital to make doing so viable.

Pretty much agree with you. Countless stories of how Amazon tears their workers apart has literally made me unwilling to _ever_ work for them. Imagine if they were so goddamn ruthless!

I’d love to hear some examples since predicting the future isn’t easy.

But regardless, it’s impossible for a business to focus entirely on the long-term. Why? There are short terms costs that have to be paid as well. So there has to be a trade off “if we do X we can keep the lights on and people employed while we work at Y which pays off in 10 years”.

Private companies typically have it a bit easier since they don’t worry about stock price, but I’ve seen plenty of private companies make stupid decisions too. At least stupid in hindsight, but not stupid at the time they were made.

Greediness is a flaw. Acquiring more than you need or deserve is at the root of what’s wrong with this world, our societies, etc.

Greed is a vice: it’s depraved and immoral. If you’re religious, it’s a venial sin! If greed becomes too commonplace in a persons life, it could even become a mortal sin.

My point is this: greed is a flaw, and not a small one. To frame it otherwise speaks to exactly the type of corruption we’ve become numb to.

But isn't greed a reflection of the asymmetrical reproduction system that serves for natural selection as evolution of the species?

Does the reflection of a natural process excuse behavior that’s wrong? Do we simply throw up our hands and say “boy nature sure is a bitch, a shame we’re powerless to do anything about it?”

No, I think not. Rising above our base nature is a task all humans should engage in. I’ll admit it seems that the ideals of Enlightenment are dying out, but surely we must fight against that with every ounce of our will, lest we descend back into another dark age?

I agree with you here in general, and I think this is part of the definition of civilisation. But I still think the way it's phrased in the parent is wrong, that it's a "flaw" and "what's wrong with society", if it's actually a function of nature.

I think it's still important to acknowledge what is part of our nature, and even if we can improve on that, it probably doesn't work to go too much against it, or deny it.

I suppose it’s worth noting that my phrasing was a direct response to “greediness isn’t a flaw of the system, it’s a core value”

I do think it’s a flaw. Its an overreach to say it’s the singular cause of all the worlds problems, but boy does it seem like it sometimes!

Now I’m left wondering something I’m sure philosophers have grappled with better than I can: can a creature’s inherent nature be wrong? Are right and wrong even applicable to nature? Seems like it’s more that it just is and we can only apply our morality after the fact.

I guess that means I take your point :)

I think the failure of communism more or less proves that greed is not just an accidental flaw of the system, but rather an amplification of our natural selection, and as such cannot just be suppressed or removed, because it removes too much of our driving force.

> can a creature’s inherent nature be wrong?

Yes I think it will always be morally wrong, because it will be selfish and greedy at it's very core.

I’ve enjoyed this little exchange and you’ve given me some things to think about. Thanks!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com