[grawprog]

>Address the issue of trust, and you can fix the real issues here.

How can the issue of trust be fixed when most of these institution's goals are not really aligned with the general public?

A company with the goal of profitting as much as possible from consumers and a government with the goal of helping those companies line their pockets as much as possible isn't really inline with what the average person wants. Because typically it's the average person's pockets they're draining to line their pockets.

There's no trust because there is nothing to trust.

Actually, that's not true, there is trust, we can trust that whatever they're doing or saying, it's for their benefit and not the general good of most people.

It's blatant and obvious and if people are losing faith in these institutions, it's not distrust, it's the coming to the obvious awareness that these institutions are not and have never worked for anything other than themselves.

[Nasrudith]

The answer is seen in the corrupt Freudian slip seen in institutions after scandals when they state as a goal "restoring a sense of trust" - not restoring trustworthiness, or "addressing <root scandal>".

If you actually want to improve trustworthiness you need reforms and a purge all management who would resist or interfere.

[edmundsauto]

Doesn’t this assume the bad behavior is a result of the specific personnel? That ignores the structural incentives that have led us to this point. If those are allowed to stay the same, the system will just reach the same equilibrium with different actors.

[thu2111]

Most people don't have a naive trust companies, and that's good. Consumer's trust in companies is far more nuanced and complex: we may for example trust that if we buy an Apple device it will be well built, but we don't trust that we're getting good value for money because we know Apple has a reputation for being expensive.

This is an excellent feature of capitalism. Incentives are front and centre, people don't (usually) try to deny them. Everyone understands them and is taught about them as children. People constantly recalibrate their levels of trust in corporations and distinguish between them based on clearly marked and well protected brands. Firms seek out and inform consumers about reasons to distrust their competitors as well. There are systems like bankruptcy, the stock market, and CEO bonuses that at least try to align company behaviours with what people want them to do, as expressed through purchases in the markets. Of course they aren't perfect but they do at least exist.

Non-corporate institutions are a much murkier affair. NGOs, charities, governments and universities tend to make a lot of very dubious claims about their own trustworthiness and incentives. Many people have an utterly blind faith or even ideological loyalty to them. They often blur the boundaries between themselves, make unfounded claims of political neutrality, claim higher moral purposes, may claim they are indispensable or can't be shut down or allowed to fail, and invariably say they aren't "corrupted" by profit.

[grawprog]

The problem it seems to me is that the line between corporation and those other types of groups have gotten blurred to the point of non-existence. How many of those corporations have board members who have interests in those NGOs, charities, governments and universities? How many corporations themselves are funding them or supporting them in some way?

In a lot of ways I feel like there needs to be some kind of separation of corporation and state, much like was done with religion and state.

I mean state as in generally, governments and other publicly funded things. Treating corporations as people with the same rights to donate and influence those organizations is inevitably going to lead to them becoming the dominant influence over those things.

Despite what the law says, there is no way and individual person can ever match up to what a corporate person can do. Corporations will always dominate those other groups as long as they are given the same ability to as an individual person.

[ksec]

>Most people don't have a naive trust companies

I trusted Steve Jobs' Apple far more not because of some RDF or whatever Media spin. I trust it because it fits my world view and most of their action could well be explained. Trust is hard to build up, and normally after many incidents happened.

I lost that trust once you repeatedly find they were lying. Tim Cook's Apple lied during the Qualcomm case, and in the IMG case. Obviously Tim Cook was acting in Apple's best interest. But it was no longer Steve Jobs Apple.

It just shows Money and incentives are often ( for most people ) their motives.

[jokethrowaway]

I don't see why I wouldn't trust a charity to do what they claim, filtered by their brand reputation and public opinion (exactly like I would for a corporation).

I can't trust the government (and education) to do anything but try to hoard more money at the expense of citizens.

The only problem is the governmental parasites polarising and dividing the people, while increasing spending every year.

[thu2111]

Charities don't really develop reputations except among a tiny subset of people who are unusually interested in that specific charity. That's because the people who give them money aren't getting anything in return whose quality they can judge. Money goes into a black hole, you hope it does some good but short of reading lots of obscure reports and paperwork, you can't find out.

Example: Wikimedia Foundation. How many people who donate realise that their money isn't paying for Wikipedia but rather a huge very well paid staff that work on separate websites? How many people realise the Foundation has plenty of money and doesn't need more? Virtually none - they just take it for granted that a charity would never mislead them by claiming it was essential that you donate RIGHT NOW to stop Wikipedia going offline or being covered in ads.

That's what I mean by capitalism working very well. When dealing with a company you give them some money but also get something in return that you can judge. There are also lots of review sites, magazines, friendship circles and other forums where people can compare notes to see how their experiences match up. Reputations roughly correlate with actual quality of results. Outside of capitalist interactions reputation is often entirely artificial or even circular, for instance, in academia "this person has a great reputation because everyone says they have a great reputation" is de rigour.

[gowld]

Why would someone choose to buy an Apple if they didn't find it good value for money?

[handol]

Because there is something about the Apple product they want, that they can't get somewhere else.