Companies are entirely driven by money. If one person chooses not to patronize the business it probably won't change anything. But ehst if a hundred do? Or a hundred thousand?
Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product.
The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes little to no difference. Enough people raising their voice, though, can fundamentally shake the system.
They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it. Case in point -- Zuckerberg is blowing billions of dollars on VR without a path to profitability. No one can make him do anything -- he can tank Facebook/Meta if he wants to, regardless of how many people do or do not buy Quests.
Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
> Stop trying to defend the view that corporations are somehow beholden to the public just because the public sometimes buys things some of them sell.
I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.
> They may be driven by money, but they are not mandated to take any course of action because of it.
That's not true for publicly traded companies, they are legally obligated to do what is best for their shareholders. Obviously no one can predict the future so they only do what they believe is best and can get it wrong, like Zuckerberg seems to have done with the metaverse bet.
> I never made that claim and wouldn't defend it. I was arguing that consumers collectively have some power over corporations via their wallets. Consumers can choose not to fly on commercial airlines, or specifically not to take flights on certain models of plane. I never said anything about them being beholden to the public, only the dollar.
Regulation is the answer to this question. Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none). By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes. This is a terrible way to think the world should work, so let's work on getting corporations to do the right thing by making them do it and not hoping they might because we decided not to give them money that they didn't know they didn't get from us.
Regulation should almost never be the answer in my opinion, it should be an absolute last resort. Regulation requires government officials that both deeply understand the market today and where it will be in the future. They need to be able to define clear and relevant metrics, rules without loopholes, and do it while the large financial incentives of the industry are trying to buy their way out of real regulation. This can be done but is extremely difficult, and when done wrong can just make things worse.
> Asking a person to not fly and pretending that makes a difference to a huge airline is minimizing how much of a burden it is to have to deal with as an individual (a lot) vs how much difference it might make to the company (none).
There are certainly times where not flying would be a heavy burden, but I expect the average person flies quite often for nonessential trips that could be skipped if they wanted to out of safety concerns or disapproval of the companies involved. Have a sick parent a few state or countries away? Driving could be a big burden compared to flying. Wanting a vacation to get away from work and enjoy a week with your family? I'd argue that most people could do that st home or within driving distance if that was important to them.
> By comparing it to a democratic vote (mandating a change in government forcing accountability to the populace), I see it as effectively stating that money can take the place of democracy and that means that those with more money get more votes.
Again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said. I am comparing the power an individual voter has in their political system with the power they have as an individual customer in their economic system. I am not saying that money takes the place of votes or that the systems are interchangeable. Money should play much less of a role in politics than it does today and politics should play much less of a role in business.
> Regulation should almost never be the answer in my opinion, it should be an absolute last resort.
I disagree with your opinion, which is why I responded with a post disagreeing with it.
> Again you're putting words in my mouth that I never said.
No, I put words in my mouth:
> I see it as
It is my interpretation and I think you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, so to speak. You can't say something that means one thing and then proclaim that you disagree with that thing.
Agree or disagree with the politics behind it, Budweiser was absolutely rocked by a large enough number of customers deciding to no longer buy their product.
The comparison is absolutely valid from where I sit. One vote or one customs makes little to no difference. Enough people raising their voice, though, can fundamentally shake the system.