> While it's true that it's possible to run a company without being horrible, it's almost certainly far better for short-term profits to do so.
Only when you're in a monopoly or an oligopoly or similar. And this is a market failure in a capitalist economy. In this case, it's enforced by regulation, which is the opposite of what a capitalist economy is supposed to have.
I'm saying that the argument that we're observing capitalism at work is false.
> Is monopoly in general a failure? Or is it AT&T in this particular instance?
Monopoly is in general a market failure (which is why antitrust laws exist). Therefore AT&T having the position it does (not a monopoly, but an oligopoly at best) is a market failure.
> Is regulation the opposite of what capitalist economies should have?
My understanding is that capitalism (in the sense that the great-grandparent post was using it) is something that involves not having regulation. Since AT&T's position is a consequence of this regulation, the assertion that we're observing capitalism (in the sense I think the great-grandparent used the term) is false.
I dont know why you have been downvoted. You have a valid question. If monopoly or oligopoly is the situation all markets gravitate towards if left unchecked by regulation, then these situation are not failures but expected outcomes of capitalism. Why are these outcomes not considered effects of the invisible hand?
They are not. Their executives probably are because they're paid based on quarterly profits and won't still be around when it all catches on fire, but their actions are not in the long term interests of the shareholders.
Acting like a bag of idiots and making everyone hate you is bad for business. Your customers may not have any alternative today but tomorrow they're going to be lobbying for Google Fiber, municipal networks, community networks, more government regulation, antitrust enforcement, etc.
That assumes a sufficient fraction of the population understands its own self-interest and will hurt AT&T by supporting a disruptive competitor. I hope that's the case, but it's also possible that AT&T (or any company that seems to be mistreating consumers) has market research that indicates the vast majority of their customers are too passive to switch and can safely be milked like cows.
I'm not going to downvote you because I disagree, but agreeable people like you are why we as a society are where we are.
Excusing misconduct with excuses like "oh, they are just executives acting rationally in their shareholders best interests" is a moral hazard and despicable position.
Just the notion that we're casually comparing and excusing away mercenaries & war criminals and contrasting it to a telecom company is disgusting.
I didn't say anything about war criminals. That's a different thread. I said something about executives in boardrooms. I'm saying that these execs could give a damn about what they're selling, only that they sell lots of it.
This is a microcosm of society, perhaps, but my commentary was about capitalism.
Capitalism isn't the be all and end all of an open society. The fact that it's socially acceptable that an executive at a company like Blackwater can be compared to any other businessman is a problem. (In the specific case of Blackwater, they are well known enough to perhaps be an exception.)
Being a war profiteer, leader of old-style trust that exploits its customers or a peddler of political corruption isn't rationality -- it's an anti-pattern of capitalism.
You're right that it is an anti-pattern of capitalism. However it is possible for an anti-pattern to be completely rational, while having horrible consequences, given the way the system is set up. The consequences might be more clearly unacceptable when you see it with Blackwater, but exactly the same perverse incentives are driving every company.
Absolutely. If you don't like AT&T, don't buy their services. If you don't like Verizon, don't buy theirs. I have a smart phone on no contract and pay $10/month for service. I only get data via WI-FI but it's unlimited and that's good enough for me. There are alternatives. Everything is a tradeoff. AT&T either provides enough value that it's worth the cost or it doesn't. This is a decision that each customer makes.
Its not the consumers fault. The average consumer is going to act like the average consumer - and they are very unlikely to change any time soon. If capitalism causes problems when consumers act like consumers then that's a problem with capitalism.
The problem isn't even with AT&T, it is systemic. These companies exist in a system with perverse incentives that forces them to provide the lowest quality service possible, that consumers will still tolerate, in order to maximize profits. These aren't shitty business practices, they are completely rational for maximizing profits.
On that note, we cry out in rage when a for-profit does some money-grabbing evil, but we also get our feathers all ruffled when a company for social good wants to be for-profit.
If we don't want corporations to make money by being evil, shouldn't we want them to make money by being good?
Then doesn't that mean that we should try to change how they are behaving? They are abusing public infrastructure and their psuedomonopoly status to get those short term profits.
While it's true that it's possible to run a company without being horrible, it's almost certainly far better for short-term profits to do so.
> Halliburton, Sodexo and Blackwater
Guess what the executives running these companies have in common with the ones running AT&T?
Downvote away. AT&T is behaving rationally.