I tend to dislike pieces like this. Advice like this: ... but in the meantime, you can help as an individual. I recommend that you refuse to buy as much as a guitar pick from any company currently owned by a private equity firm, or any financial entity that does not come from the music industry itself. tends to not be very practical or helpful. It means that for many people their choice is do this evil immoral thing that the author is decrying as the downfall of civilization or go without entirely. Given that choice, most people will do this presumably immoral, evil thing. Because people have needs.
Stuff I would prefer to see: A list of websites helping to support alternative business models that the author thinks is not all evil and immoral. A list of businesses that try to source their products from approved, moral places as much as they can. Other pro-active things that one can actually do (other than "just don't buy from Bad Guys" -- I mean more in the vein of "here are the Good Guys you can and should buy from").
Last, "parasite" economies tend to kill themselves. Historically, Greece, India and Persia all placed extremely high value on bees as a naturally occurring mental model for business, basically: Bees neither kill flowers nor get killed by them. They exchange their service (pollination) for product (pollen, with which to make honey) and both sides gain something of benefit without being harmed. This is a brilliant thing to value culturally when most of your examples from nature fall into the category of "kill or be killed".
It is brilliant because it is the only paradigm that is sustainable. If you are enough of an asshole, you can and will be taken out eventually. Even Roman emperors sometimes got offed by their own Praetorian Guard for being too assholish to put up with. No one is beyond reach. You learn to engage in a symbiotic exchange where both sides gain something or you eventually get a Darwin Award. That's just how it is.
Last, "parasite" economies tend to kill themselves
Yeah, the problem is that there are a lot of good people who depend on this economy. This is why its last near-death experience resulted in a bailout sponsored by "the rest of us".
I don't see how that is really any kind of response to any of my points. The author is suggesting we basically kill that which we do not approve of rather than telling us how to better foster something they think would be good. There are other things going on in the world. The business he criticizes is not the be all and end all of the economy. Advocating killing that which you do not approve while not promoting or fostering that which you do approve is absolutely not a solution to the problem you posit. In fact, it is part of the problem.
I don't see how that is really any kind of response to any of my points
I wasn't addressing all of your points; just the one I quoted. The implication that "parasite economies tending to kill themselves" is somehow helpful because the problem is thus self-limiting has a major flaw. That is, the death of such an economy can be catastrophic for everyone; not just the bad actors.
Otherwise, I agree 100% with your sentiment that we should promote positive solutions vs. simply attempting to punish businesses we don't like. I have long believed as much myself, and have worked to that end. In the meantime, we do also have to be aware when an economy threatens the greater good and take specific measures (regulatory, activism, and otherwise) to directly address the threat.
Comments
I tend to dislike pieces like this. Advice like this: ... but in the meantime, you can help as an individual. I recommend that you refuse to buy as much as a guitar pick from any company currently owned by a private equity firm, or any financial entity that does not come from the music industry itself. tends to not be very practical or helpful. It means that for many people their choice is do this evil immoral thing that the author is decrying as the downfall of civilization or go without entirely. Given that choice, most people will do this presumably immoral, evil thing. Because people have needs.
Stuff I would prefer to see: A list of websites helping to support alternative business models that the author thinks is not all evil and immoral. A list of businesses that try to source their products from approved, moral places as much as they can. Other pro-active things that one can actually do (other than "just don't buy from Bad Guys" -- I mean more in the vein of "here are the Good Guys you can and should buy from").
Last, "parasite" economies tend to kill themselves. Historically, Greece, India and Persia all placed extremely high value on bees as a naturally occurring mental model for business, basically: Bees neither kill flowers nor get killed by them. They exchange their service (pollination) for product (pollen, with which to make honey) and both sides gain something of benefit without being harmed. This is a brilliant thing to value culturally when most of your examples from nature fall into the category of "kill or be killed".
It is brilliant because it is the only paradigm that is sustainable. If you are enough of an asshole, you can and will be taken out eventually. Even Roman emperors sometimes got offed by their own Praetorian Guard for being too assholish to put up with. No one is beyond reach. You learn to engage in a symbiotic exchange where both sides gain something or you eventually get a Darwin Award. That's just how it is.
Yeah, the problem is that there are a lot of good people who depend on this economy. This is why its last near-death experience resulted in a bailout sponsored by "the rest of us".
I don't see how that is really any kind of response to any of my points. The author is suggesting we basically kill that which we do not approve of rather than telling us how to better foster something they think would be good. There are other things going on in the world. The business he criticizes is not the be all and end all of the economy. Advocating killing that which you do not approve while not promoting or fostering that which you do approve is absolutely not a solution to the problem you posit. In fact, it is part of the problem.
I wasn't addressing all of your points; just the one I quoted. The implication that "parasite economies tending to kill themselves" is somehow helpful because the problem is thus self-limiting has a major flaw. That is, the death of such an economy can be catastrophic for everyone; not just the bad actors.
Otherwise, I agree 100% with your sentiment that we should promote positive solutions vs. simply attempting to punish businesses we don't like. I have long believed as much myself, and have worked to that end. In the meantime, we do also have to be aware when an economy threatens the greater good and take specific measures (regulatory, activism, and otherwise) to directly address the threat.
I upvoted that comment, by the way.