[geeks] Flicker users u in arms over MS acquisition...

[Mark]

On 4 Feb 2008, at 22:15, Mike Meredith wrote:

>>> How does that make their behaviour less evil ?
>>
>> I guess it doesn't make it good, or even acceptable, it was merely
>> an observation
>
> I'm not sure you can say a corporation has instinct or natural
> behaviour. Their executive officers do (and of course the drones in
> management)

Well, they steer the ship, so that was what I meant. They are also the  
people who get paid most.

> but they _should_ also have an instinct towards social
> behaviour and an upbringing that teaches the merits of responsible
> behaviour. The apparent lack of anything tempering the competitiveness
> present in some executive officers is what leads people to believe  
> that
> they exhibit symptoms of psychotic behaviour.

It's this human thing they call greed. Greed clouds compassion and  
social responsibility. You should've listened to that little green  
dude in Star Wars - he might have looked weird but he knew his  
marbles ;)

>> don't class that as 'pure evil', I reserve that for much more
>> heinous crimes.
>
> I used to live in South Wales in the aftermath of Thatcher demolishing
> the coal miners union and closing the pits.

As bad as that was, and I don't for a minute think otherwise, it  
decimated the South Wales economy and has left a permanent scar that  
won't heal for many generations, if it even ever does. It still  
doesn't rank up there with gassing Jews in locked rooms though, that  
is what I mean by 'more heinous crimes'.

>> Yes, and thus you have the root cause of why the Capitalist economy
>> is such a dire mess.
>
> I'm no apologist for the capitalist system (my sigmonster has given a
> little hint of the colour of the flag I march under ... sort of), but
> it isn't just capitalism at fault here. _we_ allow apparent psychotics
> almost free reign at the helms of some very powerful organisations.

I agree, it's been left to get this way through general apathy. Most  
people are not happy about it but most also think it's to inconvenient  
to stand up and fight it.

> Many times we have decided that the excesses of certain aspects of
> capitalism were too much and should not be permitted ... slavery,  
> child
> labour, etc. Perhaps we should draw another line in the sand.

The problem is, again, we try to draw a line in the sand but they come  
steaming over it with manilla envelopes (no, they don't usually have  
MacBook Airs in them either) with politicians names on and crap like  
that. It makes the whole thing harder.

> I must admit that I don't understand what the benefit of allowing
> companies to 'take over' other companies is supposed to be. I'm sure
> that for every example where a take-over has been beneficial, there  
> are
> dozens where the opposite was the case. Why not simply block *all*
> takeovers ?

Co-operative mergers between 2 companies who want to share assets and  
technologies are fine as long as they are for the good of the market  
i.e. not monopolistic, but offer a genuine advantage to company and  
consumer. The problem is that this is subjective, and is generally  
decided by a commission put forward to analyze monopolies that is  
supposed to represent the view of the consumer. They often don't see  
it quite the same way though and again manilla envelopes often make  
them change their minds. Sometimes they just plain get it wrong too.

> And bring in compulsory psychological testing for everyone
> controlling a budget very much larger than average income. There's  
> very
> obviously something _seriously_ wrong with at least some company
> executives

Steve Ballmer makes a great case for needing psychological testing. Is  
it me or is it more than just a co-incidence that Ballmer has been at  
MS since 1980 and they have been a bunch of crooks for about that  
long? Surely it wasn't all Bill Gates' fault?

> (don't you think at least *someone* in power at the tobacco
> companies should have spoken up?).

This is one of my particular beefs, I'm glad you mentioned it. A  
typical example of corporate/govt 'interaction' is that the tobacco  
companies make the  govt a ton in tax, so even though they are  
pedaling death in a stick, and they don't properly regulate a lot of  
the 'non-tobacco' chemicals that go into them also, the govt just  
leaves them alone for the most part.

Well, whatever. I fight them where I can but I also have to keep my  
job and stay sane :P

-- 
Mark Benson

My Blog:
<http://mdblog.68kmac.org>
68kMac.org:
<http://www.68kmac.org>
Visit my Homepage: <http://homepage.mac.com/markbenson>

"Never send a human to do a machine's job..."