It's useful to distinguish between ideas, decisions, and actions.
Every idea, no matter how good/bad, far-fetched, that would make your company money has been considered.
It doesn't matter which company.
When a company decides what to do, they reject most ideas for a variety of context dependent reasons.
Reputation is one of those reasons.
Unfortunately the meaning and importance of reputation itself has been undermined by enormous reflowing of attention by screens and the remarkable credulity of people.
>Which feeds the next point: the problem ultimately is shaping laws to protect business models rather than consumer rights.
Greed is unbounded, restrained first by character, then by law.
This basic assumption is part of the fabric of the US, itself based in part on the analysis Adam Smith.
There has always been tension between greed and character+law, and modern fashion has weakened the meaning and importance of character to almost 0, so greed feels ascendant.
But I propose that greed is the same, only the countervailing forces are weaker.
This might seem like splitting hairs.
The value in the distinction is that you can let go of worrying about intrinsic human qualities like greed getting worse.
If that were true, it would be unsolvable.
You can instead worry about a fixable problem, like how "character" itself can rise back to prominence, and how the public's BS meters can be improved.
(Getting a big population to a reasonable standard is a lot of work, so any help appreciated.)
It's useful to distinguish between ideas, decisions, and actions. Every idea, no matter how good/bad, far-fetched, that would make your company money has been considered. It doesn't matter which company. When a company decides what to do, they reject most ideas for a variety of context dependent reasons. Reputation is one of those reasons. Unfortunately the meaning and importance of reputation itself has been undermined by enormous reflowing of attention by screens and the remarkable credulity of people.
>Which feeds the next point: the problem ultimately is shaping laws to protect business models rather than consumer rights.
Greed is unbounded, restrained first by character, then by law. This basic assumption is part of the fabric of the US, itself based in part on the analysis Adam Smith. There has always been tension between greed and character+law, and modern fashion has weakened the meaning and importance of character to almost 0, so greed feels ascendant. But I propose that greed is the same, only the countervailing forces are weaker.
This might seem like splitting hairs. The value in the distinction is that you can let go of worrying about intrinsic human qualities like greed getting worse. If that were true, it would be unsolvable. You can instead worry about a fixable problem, like how "character" itself can rise back to prominence, and how the public's BS meters can be improved.
(Getting a big population to a reasonable standard is a lot of work, so any help appreciated.)