The issue is they only care about short term profits. They don’t care about the negative impacts because it doesn’t actually affect them. They also fully believe they have a captive market in that people are so conditioned to it that they won’t go searching for alternatives so long as their service, regardless of how shit it is, remains the most convenient and habitual.
And, if shit does hit the fan, they’ve already made off with a king’s ransom and will just pivot their ventures after taking their golden parachute to leave some poor schmuck holding the bag.
They don’t care about the negative impacts because it doesn’t actually affect them.
How odd.
Wealth has a tremendous capacity to insulate, but nothing is unlimited.
Whose kids could be rich enough to live as safely or comfortably in a world that regresses/declines beyond various tipping points? (I also want their safety & comfort, we would all win)
See, that is an indirect consequence, not a direct consequence. There are degrees of separation in the logic from A event to Z outcome that they attribute to other causes which they believe they can mitigate by throwing money at it.
Or they are narcissistic and self obsessed people who literally don’t care about their kids. Their kids aren’t them, so they don’t care if they will have it worse. They will be dead before shit hits the fan.
By the time the negatives hit, the CEO has their golden parachute and the investors have sold their stock at record highs. Off they go to ruin another company.
It’s even worse, the structure we have actively discourages them from doing so. Fiduciary responsibility is thrown up as a reason for a lot of things like this and knowingly picking an option that is less profitable on paper even if it’s obviously better long term is inviting questions.
Long-term gains from things like user satisfaction are hard to measure and predict.
That’s why you see these ‘Were you happy with our service?’ questions everywhere. Still, the people who answer these polls are in the minority and a specific subset of respondents, which is bad for statistics.
There might also be a situation of if they don’t do that, some other company like openai will make an ai search and spend a ton into marketing and they will lose market, so they try to avoid this scenario.
Yes, the way the system works is that short-term success is prioritized above everything else. Because if you don’t prioritize the short term, and someone else will, you’ll lose out to them.
Sure, the one who prioritizes the short term will get fucked in the long term, but that doesn’t matter, because they were the short term successful ones, and the one that went long term is now out of business or a much smaller player.
So is the issue that they dont project far enough into the future? Or do they never correctly predict the size and impact of the negativity?
The issue is they only care about short term profits. They don’t care about the negative impacts because it doesn’t actually affect them. They also fully believe they have a captive market in that people are so conditioned to it that they won’t go searching for alternatives so long as their service, regardless of how shit it is, remains the most convenient and habitual.
And, if shit does hit the fan, they’ve already made off with a king’s ransom and will just pivot their ventures after taking their golden parachute to leave some poor schmuck holding the bag.
How odd.
Wealth has a tremendous capacity to insulate, but nothing is unlimited.
Whose kids could be rich enough to live as safely or comfortably in a world that regresses/declines beyond various tipping points? (I also want their safety & comfort, we would all win)
See, that is an indirect consequence, not a direct consequence. There are degrees of separation in the logic from A event to Z outcome that they attribute to other causes which they believe they can mitigate by throwing money at it.
Or they are narcissistic and self obsessed people who literally don’t care about their kids. Their kids aren’t them, so they don’t care if they will have it worse. They will be dead before shit hits the fan.
Phrased another way, executives might come and go, but their short term profits are forever held in stocks, bonds, and real estate assets.
By the time the negatives hit, the CEO has their golden parachute and the investors have sold their stock at record highs. Off they go to ruin another company.
That’s “value extraction” in the biz
basically run like A PE firm.
It’s even worse, the structure we have actively discourages them from doing so. Fiduciary responsibility is thrown up as a reason for a lot of things like this and knowingly picking an option that is less profitable on paper even if it’s obviously better long term is inviting questions.
Remember: Everything is securies fraud
If risk adjusted profits are judged to be greater in the long term, it’s fiduciary responsibility to go for it
Long-term gains from things like user satisfaction are hard to measure and predict.
That’s why you see these ‘Were you happy with our service?’ questions everywhere. Still, the people who answer these polls are in the minority and a specific subset of respondents, which is bad for statistics.
Until a bunch of unknowns and uncertainty are added because no-one knows the future.
And they almost always assume that their actions won’t lead to a decline in users, too.
Today’s high inflation discourages heavily discounted returns years in the future.
$250 billion in short term profits is slightly more than $248 in short term profits and they don’t care that it makes things worse for everyone.
There might also be a situation of if they don’t do that, some other company like openai will make an ai search and spend a ton into marketing and they will lose market, so they try to avoid this scenario.
Yes, the way the system works is that short-term success is prioritized above everything else. Because if you don’t prioritize the short term, and someone else will, you’ll lose out to them.
Sure, the one who prioritizes the short term will get fucked in the long term, but that doesn’t matter, because they were the short term successful ones, and the one that went long term is now out of business or a much smaller player.
yes