I've no issues with capital or people consuming stuff.

My issue would be with the corporations, which I see as the new estates. Except that they are far larger and far more powerful than what we had two centuries ago. Their perks include: regulatory capture, political access, access to finance. Ie powerful corporations run the infrastructure for capital movement and consumption - in their interests.

▲

Gormo 5 hours ago | parent [-]

So it sounds like rather than objecting to a specific method of coordinating large-scale activity among multiple participants ("corporations"), you're actually objecting to political interventions that favor some parties at the expense of others? I can get on board with that.

It just seems really odd to look at "regulatory capture" and "political access" as problems originating from people engaging in commercial activity in the broader economy, rather than correctly seeing them as originating from insufficient or ineffective safeguards on the concentration and assertion of political power.

> Ie powerful corporations run the infrastructure for capital movement and consumption - in their interests.

Well, no, they don't. Both the capital and the consumption originates from the intentions and motivations of the public at large. The interests of "corporations" -- which are, again, just coordinated patterns of human activity -- are pursued by actually satisfying the motivations of the people around them. You can't get capital without offering a return to your investors; you can't get customers without offering a value proposition that's worth more to them than the price you're charging, etc.

	▲	verisimi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		>> Ie powerful corporations run the infrastructure for capital movement and consumption - in their interests. > Well, no, they don't. Both the capital and the consumption originates from the intentions and motivations of the public at large. The interests of "corporations" -- which are, again, just coordinated patterns of human activity -- are pursued by actually satisfying the motivations of the people around them. You can't get capital without offering a return to your investors; you can't get customers without offering a value proposition that's worth more to them than the price you're charging, etc. Well, yes, they do. If you use the law to legislate this or that, you are directing the infrastructure. A great example is that people in general don't want phones/cars/fridges that spy on them, they simply want the phone/car/fridge. However, the simple option is not on offer. The regulatory capture provides us with the government mandate that data be captured, so it seems that corporate hands are tied. The consumer cannot find the option they would like. All this can happen while offering a return to investors. In fact, licensing businesses, creating moats that small companies cannot bridge, ensures that large corporations have an unassailable position. They can investigate the maximum extraction from the consumer, rather than price a product according to cost. Wait till we all start to experience personalised pricing, where each person is offered a different price according to who they are. Finally, you distinguish between corporate and political interests. I don't. These are the same creature to me. We already live in a fascist environment, where the government + business operate together. Whether you vote red or blue will do nothing for issues where the outcome is predetermined - such as the complete loss of privacy.