[standardUser]

It is outrageous, but the blame doesn't lie with companies doing precisely what companies are intended to due, the fault lies solely with politicians who reliably fail to put their voters interest above that of their donors.

[vegetablepotpie]

Companies are intended to extort money from former customers based on real and implied threats? What is the claim here? Are you saying for profit companies are inherently parasitic and politicians need to pass specific regulations to prevent every instance of bad corporate behavior? Or is it that politicians have created systems that makes companies acting antisocially inevitable? Or is it that companies have made adequate enough campaign contributions to have politicians look the other way?

[standardUser]

The obvious claim is that companies will (and should) use any legal means to profit. If we don't want a certain behavior from a company we should elect people who support passing laws to regulate those activities. As has been done for generations.

But to pretend companies should just act like we want is ridiculous.

[dwaltrip]

The law and profit motive aren’t the only things guiding company behavior.

Those factors are very dominant, but I don’t think that is the whole story. Companies are composed of individuals, and individuals have complex reasons for their behavior, much more than simply not going to jail and making money.

[standardUser]

Historically, companies only stop doing bad things when regulated. That's just the reality and anything else is wishful thinking.

[dwaltrip]

Look, I hear you. I think you might be 95% right.

But there absolutely are people at companies who choose not to do bad things, or to even stop doing something bad the company was already doing, that cost the company some immediate profit, despite the fact that there wasn’t a regulation forcing them to make that choice.

This happens. People aren’t economic robots.

Maybe you want to argue that this happens such a small percentage of the time that it isn’t worth considering. Or that it isn’t practical or robust to rely on this dynamic if we wish to reduce systemic bad behavior by companies. Those are different and more reasonable claims, in my mind.

My hunch is that this is an important fact about the world that we shouldn’t discount entirely. But I do agree regulations are very important. And I’m not sure the best way to make use of the dynamic I’m describing.

[rectang]

You say that like politicians and companies never talk to each other. Who do you think is exerting the corrupting pressure on the politicians?