> but they sound like something people should stop doing business with until they go away.... because emigrating to another country -- which may not be any better -- is a dramatic high-cost change to your entire life, whereas not investing in or working for a particular company is the default state that happens if you do nothing.
This sequence of thoughts expressed so closely together powerfully demonstrates how fundamentalism results in motivated reasoning that retards certain conclusions in one context and hyper-charges rationalization in the opposing context.
If you don't like market capture in the USA, you have the simple choice of simply stop doing business with the USA. Just like businesses always have the simple choice of simply stop doing business with abusive counterparties.
How is it that you think an individual leaving behind their friends and family and everything they've ever known and picking up and moving to an entirely different hypothetically better country which may or may not even accept them as a citizen is on the same level as choosing Canonical over Oracle?
>>>> Incompetent private organizations fail and go away
The point is that a private organizations often continue to exist despite incompetence because other (competent and highly profitable) organizations are not able to efficiently executing on the choice to end a business relationship.
The point is this: ending a business relationship can take as long, or even longer, than an individual executing on the choice to emigrate to a new region.
Ask any bank that has been continuously trying to move off of big iron since the 90s whether switching off of mainframes is, to use your words, a "dramatic high-cost change to your entire organization".
> ...leaving behind their friends and family and everything they've ever known...
Yes, and so is breaking a long-term business relationship...
My point is NOT that citizens should be expected to move between countries. My point is that your expectation about the efficiency with which firms can execute on their preferences is just as flawed as the expectation that labor can efficiently execute on its preferences (by e.g. moving between countries).
So, no, incompetent private organizations do not fail and go away. That baseless religious belief of market fundamentalists has no basis in reality.
> The point is this: ending a business relationship can take as long, or even longer, than an individual executing on the choice to emigrate to a new region.
There is a massive difference between something which is theoretically possible and something which is actually common.
And I would challenge you to even identify such a situation that didn't come about as a result of regulatory constraints or a government-granted monopoly.
> Ask any bank that has been continuously trying to move off of big iron since the 90s whether switching off of mainframes is, to use your words, a "dramatic high-cost change to your entire organization".
And yet even that isn't as difficult as emigrating, it just requires them to spend 2% of their revenues to migrate when the status quo is only costing them 1% of their revenues.
Meanwhile you've managed to choose an example which is a result of a government-granted monopoly and regulatory constraints. Under a sane copyright system a copyright that predates the 90s would have expired by now and enabled competition. And the reason they're still using mainframes unlike every other industry that has moved away from them is that they're subject to complex regulatory requirements that at the same time makes them change-averse and isolates their own industry from competition which allows them to absorb the inefficiency themselves.
Let the likes of Robinhood do half the things they want to do and see how many banks still using mainframes are left in ten years.
Nor are companies like IBM by any means the most egregious offenders. What they offer is expensive (some might say overpriced), but for the banks it's worth it over the alternative which is nonetheless actually available -- as proven by the fact that some banks don't use mainframes. Which is why even IBM has to keep coming up with better mainframes with faster processors and lower energy consumption and newer features instead of resting on their laurels.
> So, no, incompetent private organizations do not fail and go away. That baseless religious belief of market fundamentalists has no basis in reality.
The long list of companies that have actually failed due to incompetence and gone away would beg to differ.
This sequence of thoughts expressed so closely together powerfully demonstrates how fundamentalism results in motivated reasoning that retards certain conclusions in one context and hyper-charges rationalization in the opposing context.
If you don't like market capture in the USA, you have the simple choice of simply stop doing business with the USA. Just like businesses always have the simple choice of simply stop doing business with abusive counterparties.