Sweet. Get Luigi on the phone.
A while back, I was watching a video about emergent behaviour. A fun concept. the idea is that under some rules, the way things behave ends up making their own different rules. Like how the rules of particle physics determine how subatomic particles behave, but when together they form chemistry, a different set of rules working on top of the lower layer. The same way as biochemistry becomes its own thing, and so biology is built on top of that, and on top of that we have ecology and then humans, and sociology, economics…
It left me with a question, a rather big and stupid question. We are intelligent, sentient, we are just a bunch of cells, intelligence has appeared in our layer. and my question was, can it appear in another? would we notice if there was an intelligent organism that uses our behaviour as its cells? I am not asking for sentient, because that is such a philosophical question which would be a massive tangent just to unpack.
For a while I was just wondering if it was possible, until I realized. They exist. Institutions. they are another layer of emergence, and they do have intelligence and behaviour.
You might say, that it is obvious they are intelligent, they have a CEO that makes decisions, therefore they get their intelligence from him and/or his advisors or advising teams. good point, exceptthe CEO is not the institution, he is replaceable, and the institutions themselves have built in mechanisms for it, to run efficiently. everyone is replaceale and for what? the survival ad near cancerous growth of said institution. Shareholders only care about numbers going up, and will fire anyone who makes any decision that questions it.
Aha, you will point at the shareholders, they are people, they make the decisions. Except most of them are not, they are other institutions, other corporations trying to keep the numbers up. trying to feed on capital.
This seems obvious. But I just providing another lens. Because now we can see their behaviour under a new light. Just like living organisms requre energy and its distribution to live. Institutions need capital, need people to work in there for them to exist, need people moving money around for them to exist.
And given the new lens we can ask different questions. Do they age, evolve, get diseases, do they have an ecology?
They do age. They must grow and a bigger corporation might be stronger but less adaptable and less nimble. can take less risks, it has less space to grow and might only survive by buying off the competition. For example, we can point at Kodak, they could have developed the digital cameras except they make money selling camera film, not cameras. For them making any product that will hurt film sales was short term suicide. Digital cameras were unavoidable, they could have succeeded in the digital fight and come out on top, but trying was forbidden to them as any decision that would hurt them in the short term is beyond the scope of their actions.
Evolve? yes they do. in their own way. simply, any institution that does not grow as fast or as strong will simply die off. There is a lot of competition, and new corporations with different rules will try to take over and if they actually are better fit for their environment they will succeed. We can see the evolution of corporations within the last centuries with corporations getting more traits, all using new behaviours and try to survive copying from each other if they can.
Ecology? Just look at the markets, private equity are basically scavengers, some corporations feed each other, niche speciation, trophic cascades… all those concepts apply here in some way.
My point is, corporations are not people. They are their own creatures, which care for us. The same way you care for your own cells. Are you even aware or care that millions of your cells die regularly, for example in your gut or skin? no, the same way a corporation has absolutely no care for their workers.
This is just a lens, if you are a socialist you might think best to end them, which might work. Whatever institutions we make will likely have their own issues. A liberal might think that under these metaphors we might be able to tame them, which is possible. Except not fighting them is something corporations want us to believe.
I personally think we can consider domestication. by understanding them through this lens. One way to domesticate them is simple. Kill them. I mean the bad ones. Let them fail, and fear not for their death. If they hurt people, and there is a lawsuit, the punishment should be significant, enough to kill the company and ruin all the investors. This way surviving companies will be afraid and police themselves. They will only behave themselves as long as there are consequences for not doing so. If you try to domesticate animals you will put down those who bite and are dangerous. Another solution is that stakeholders should be entitled to shares, people who work or rely on the product should have a voice and more importantly a vote. Although then we need to look into what institution is deciding who gets shares.
BTW, this can be interpreted as a liberal believing that “Just one more reform, trust me bro”. or worse an ancap thinking we just need the right corporations. My version of a reformed capitalism would be so different it would be a stretch to call it liberal.
TLDR: corporations are not people, they need to be treated as such, and be forced to serve public interest. Even less considering them as a group of people.
There’s an entire field of organizational psychology that studies this phenomenon. I have a colleague who has her doctorate in it, super smart person. She gets so frustrated when she gets a call to help solve some org issue and nobody understands pretty much what you just described.
Changing reporting structures and titles only goes so far. At some point you are inside the system and have to observe its rules. Without changing some fundamental piece or pieces you’re going to come to a limit of what you can do. Ever suggest changing incentive structures to match desired outcomes? She has, and won’t be doing it again after being laughed off the job.
If you’re a publicly traded company in a capitalist country I would guess 65% of your culture and behaviors are immovable. And, as of late, I also believe that those 65% are the worst behaviors for humanity.
you cannot even attempt to change the system without friction from said system. however, we shouldn’t care at all if said system complains. those systems aren’t our friend. and we need to use them for our benefit, not the other way round.
These emergent institutional entities are themselves the gut biota of Moloch.
Interesting take!
I’m not sure how well recieved it will be here on Lemmy, but it’s well reasoned and explained with clear references.
Even if others don’t agree with you, you’ve certainly earned respect for so cleanly writing out how you’re looking at this and why.
Personally, I think your answer aligns itself well with the classic solutions to these problems.
Machiavelli wrote extensively about what you’re saying in “The Prince” and came to a similar solution that institutions and any position of power over them needs to be completely transparent and open to critique. He pushed for heavy regulation becuase it’s the literal singular mechanism that pushes institutions towards benefiting the public instead of benefiting themselves.
The most interesting takeaway from reading The Prince in a modern context is how deregulation killed every system of governance we’ve tried going all the way back to ancient Rome.
Nero fiddled as Rome burned because Roman government was deregulated to the point an idiot could hold power over them.
USSR couldn’t keep communism regulated, so those that were stealing and breaking the system used their illegally gained resources to deconstruct the communist regime in its entirety.
Now, in the US we’re watching as both of these happen at the same time. A social system deregulated to the point several reality TV stars can hold the highest military and government positions while bailing out our Oligarchs so much they’ve evolved from “too big to fail” into “too big to stop.”
Tansparency and regulation are a necessity in any functioning society to prevent the minority of horrible humans among us from becoming subjugators.
actually, it seems it was well received by people who read it.
was afraid no one will read an essay here.
“too big to fail” should be turn to “too big to keep alive”
We need more luigis
2 of the worst companies out there fighting, get the popcorn ready
As much as people harp on blackrock and vanguard they hold a ton of people’s retirement funds.
This is a vicious thing to do of course but they are protecting a lot of people’s nest egg.
Oh please. That doesn’t make the math any more forgivable. Every investor made a choice. The fact that it’s an institutional investor and mutual funds doesn’t sever the provider of the money and their demand for returns from the ethical issues of what the companies are doing.
Don’t fail to hold equity investors like this to account because they’re holding grandma’s retirement hostage. That’s on grandma too.
Wait. What’s the deal with vanguard? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone harp on them
Fuck them. Oh no the insurance company is doing what it’s supposed to instead of denying everyone like they do.
Their job is to attain shareholder value, not to legislate healthcare. If you’re relying on the charity of for-profit corporations run by shareholders then you’re going to have a sad time, you need to look at who you’re voting for.
Sure but it is sorta a treating the symptom and not the disease. Blackrock is right to sue them as a shareholder but companies should not be involved in people’s health care to begin with.
Can you explain in what way you feel Blackrock is right? Do you feel that people’s lives and healthcare are less important than share holder profits for a company that sells you the promise of covering your medical expenses because that’s what you are specifically paying them to do because they gave you a legally binding agreement to do so? How does a health insurance company insuring healthcare costs put them in the wrong? I really need a clarification here.
Actually they’re wrong to do it
send more blue shells
So this article cites a CBS news article which says:
"In the proposed class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in the Southern District of New York, investor Roberto Faller alleges UnitedHealth “artificially inflated prices” when the company initially forecast earnings per share of $29.50 to $30 in December. UnitedHealth then reaffirmed that outlook in January, despite mounting a backlash following an October Senate report on its high rate of claim denials and, later, the December killing of its CEO.
Faller’s complaint comes after UnitedHealth cut its 2025 forecast for adjusted profit per share to a lower range between $26 to $26.50.
Attorneys argued that the company’s statements on performance expectations last year and earlier this year were “materially false and misleading” because UnitedHealth didn’t tell shareholders “it would have to adjust its strategy, which resulted in heightened denials compared to industry competitors.”"
So I guess it’s okay to just completely lie now, huh?
ITT:
There’s this rule that says a business will never make less money to provide better arrived. They will charge us more and deny claims to compensate.
Why should the customer pay for the business to weather ups and downs.
Take pge. Hey burn half of the north bay down and then charge people more on their bills to prevent future fires. They were pocketing the money for years which caused the fires.
This country has really reached its end.
Did you know? Blackrock is the corporation that all evil corporations in fiction are based off of.
Technically, according to the source of the article above, BlackRock is actually suing UnitedHealth over stock price manipulation and that it’s earnings forecast did not disclose that they would be denying patients at a higher rate than competitors in order to meet its goal.
In other words, they’re suing UHC for denying too many people.
Let’s not conflate a legal rationale with a true motivation.
The premise of the lawsuit is literally the opposite of what the users here claimed was the premise of the lawsuit. If you wanted to insult Black Rock CEO and be honest you could just say he is suing them for not telling them about the denial rates and that he would have been fine if they had in fact told him.
Their true motive is to punish people who inflated the stock price with unachievable forecasts, thereby receiving monetary compensation. They couldn’t be more opaque about it if they tried.
Did you respond to the wrong person or something? I didn’t say shit about that
We were discussing how the lawsuit does or does not differ from their motivations.
Yeah the bit about “in other words” where you said the legal basis for the dispute is about a moral issue. You don’t see how that’s blatantly wrong?
I never said that, I explained very very very briefly that the source cited by this article above claims the basis for the lawsuit is that UnitedHealth made public earnings forecasts which were unachievable without artificially increasing the denial rate of claims, and they did not disclose this information to investors.
Morality has nothing to do with Black Rock’s claims. They were promised more money return on investment than was physically possible to provide.
me thinks 1 Luigi was not enough Luigi’s. more Luigi’s may be required.
in Mario Kart
Given the obesity rate in the US, we may also need a few Marios.
Luigi appears to CEO in a nightmare
CEO: “Waaaaah! Luigi!!!”
Luigi: “No, just the regular one.”
Who is the CEO of Blackrock?
Apparently Larry Fink runs the American Investment Firm known as BlackRock. Why do you ask? Are you going to write him a letter? In that case according to the article there’s some relevant information about where to send it
“In 2004, they bought Finch Farm in North Salem, New York from the actor Stanley Tucci for $3.7 million and have since bought seven more parcels of land there, including one from Maurice Sendak and 27 acres from the town’s deputy supervisor Peter Kamenstein in 2019 for $5.4 million.[47] They also have an apartment on the Upper East Side of Manhattan and a house in Aspen, Colorado.[3]”
If you’re worried about him being on the opposite side of political issues then don’t you worry because Larry “Fink is a lifelong supporter of the Democratic Party.”
I hope that helps you with your message! Good Luck.
I somehow doubt he was a Democrat. There are articles claiming he just split campaign contributions in half.
Sorry UnitedHealth, but your insurance does not cover getting bled dry by parasitic leeches.
Any attorneys willing to weigh in, hypothetically, about if BlackRock wins, whether this would open them up to suits from UHG benefit members?
My thinking is if BlackRock wins and UHG goes back their old denying claims ways, could a patient who doesn’t get necessary care OR family members if they die due to a denial sue BlackRock with an argument to damage and harm from BlackRock’s actions?
If BR wins, it just means that you cannot lie about your earnings targets. UH is getting sued not because they earned less, they are getting sued because they did not disclose their actions would impact the earnings target.
Mandatory insurance takes almost $800 a month out of my check for family. Company only offers a high deductible plan. I cant afford the copays so … What is the point?
I’m unclear on what you’re asking. Are you asking what’s the point of suing BlackRock?
Sounds like the black rock ceo needs a visit by the Mario bros.
I hope these people have the day they deserve
They’ll all probably get away with everything while also giving themselves more money due to Trump’s regime. They’ll all live to ripe old ages supported by profits that could’ve benefitted everyone, if they don’t cure aging for themselves before then to become absolute, not that their shitty nepo kids wouldn’t just replace them.
