this post was submitted on 14 Aug 2023
252 points (100.0% liked)

Asklemmy

1462 readers
83 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Was just trying to explain to someone why everything is going to shit, specifically companies, and realized, I don't fully get it either.

I've got the following explanation. The sentences marked with "???" are were I'm lost. Anyone mind telling me, if they're correct and if so, why?

The past few years, central banks were giving out interest rates of 0% or even negative percentages. Regular banks would not quite pass this on, but you could still loan money and give it back later with no real interest payments.

This lead to lots of people investing in companies. As long as those companies paid out more money than those low interest rates, it was worthwhile. But at the same time, this meant companies didn't have to be profitable, because they could pay out investors from money that other investors gave them???

This has stopped being the case, as central banks are hiking interest rates again, to combat inflation???

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Millie@lemm.ee 187 points 2 years ago (5 children)

Literally money. More specifically, the financial need under a capitalist system for businesses to constantly grow and increase profits, and to focus on shareholder profits over making a good product. Most businesses on any sort of large scale today aren't in it to do a good job at making whatever it is they make, they're in it to make money. Their actual 'business' is just an incidental stop on the way to making more money.

You see this literally everywhere. Remember Odwalla? They made these great, super-thick bottled smoothy-like juices. Easily the healthiest thing you could find to drink in most of the places they were sold. Then Coca-Cola bought them out, changed the name to Naked Juice, and watered them all down. What we have now, as a result, is a pale imitation of what we once had.

Why? Because Odwalla was profitable, so it was profitable for Coca-cola to buy up a competitor for shelf space. But once they were bought up, there's no incentive to deliver the same quality of product. They have no remaining competition, so they can release a shittier version and we'll basically just suck it up because it's still healthier than soda.

Our reward for worshiping currency is for everything ever made out of love of a craft or an art to be exploited and turned into a shittier version of itself.

The solution, to my reckoning, is to start making things you love because you love to make them and to refuse to sell out when they come knocking.

[–] GFGJewbacca@lemm.ee 82 points 2 years ago (4 children)

There's only one thing I would alter in your statement. You said:

...and to focus on shareholder profits over making a good product.

I would say, "and to focus on shareholder profits over ~~making a good product~~ anything else, including life itself.

It's more profitable for a health insurance company to deny someone's claim than to pay for their healthcare in the US. The insurance company won't care if that ultimately leads to the person's death - they have to answer to their shareholders.

It's more profitable for Nestlé or Google to siphon water from countries in the global South than it is to have sustainable practices that don't exacerbate climate change. So what if that means that millions of people will die in the years to come? That's their problem for being poor.

We need to bring about the kind of change that has politicians recognize that there is more to human life than a dollar amount, and that poverty is not a moral failing on the part of the individual. But until that happens, poverty is akin to a death sentence.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] GyozaPower@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I wouls just add that it's all about making profits and increasing them year per year, but always focusing on the short term. To the CEOs, shareholders and other directives, it doesn't matter if the company goes bankrupt 10 years from now, as long as they suck in all the profits they can now.

Even if the company is very successful, with a very good product(s) and they could just go into easy-ride mode continuing to provide those products. They only want to make as much money as quickly as possible and once they get their hands on the company, the enshitification for the sake of quick profits ensues.

[–] Crankpork 3 points 2 years ago

This is why I feel bad about any company releasing their “best product ever”, because it’s all downhill from there. The only thing left for the shareholders to do is cut costs, worsening the product.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

See also: craft brewing

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Nonameuser678@aussie.zone 39 points 2 years ago

Cause 1% of people own 99% of everything. That's never going to not be a shitty situation.

But also shit has been bad for marginalised groups since like forever. Now we're all just getting a taste of that as our masters pull the ladder up from under them.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 38 points 2 years ago (4 children)

It's cyclical and it's been happening for thousands of years. It's part of our human nature.

We all work together and build systems, societies and civilizations and do great things. We become wealthy and then slowly concentrate that wealth to smaller and smaller groups of people. Eventually the majority of the wealth is controlled by a very small group of people and everyone else has nothing. The system at this point can not sustain itself and collapses. Then the whole human system restarts again from the bottom.

It's happened many many times throughout human history.

We are just at the height of one of those cycles.

[–] OtakuAltair@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

Maybe this can change in the software space with the advent of foss.

It kinda is I suppose, even if very, very slowly.

[–] lippiece@lemmy.sdfeu.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

What exactly do you mean by system collapsing and restarting? How does it look?

[–] min_fapper@iusearchlinux.fyi 6 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oooh! I got this one! There’s an excellent YouTube channel called “Fall of Civilizations” that show all the different ways this happened in the past.

https://youtube.com/@FallofCivilizations

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I think the overall picture is accurate, wealth typically concentrates in good times, and spreads out in bad ones. However, we in the West are still nowhere near the all-time highs of inequality, and while it's cyclic it's not in a predictable way like that. I don't think it's even clear that highly unequal societies must become unstable.

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The trouble is that we can't apply the same speed of development or collapse to our civilization as to those in the past.

We have nuclear weapons, mass communications, global internet and interconnected multinational financial systems that all work at real time speed all across the world at the mass level and individual level.

We are capable of developing in so many ways at such great speed compared to the past .... but we are also capable to destroying ourselves instantly through nuclear warfare, or within a century through our ignorance of climate change.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] EremesZorn 4 points 2 years ago

Entropy. Plain and simple.

[–] mp3@lemmy.ca 32 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Most of these businesses operated at near unsustainable levels with almost negligible interest rates on loans, and now they're panicking because their business model is shit and they're trying to recover however they can by enshittifying everything.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I think it's cultural. An entire generation has now been raised to believe that capitalism is inherently oppressive. Therefore they unconsciously or consciously believe that they must oppress their customers as part of the money-making ritual. And since capitalism doesn't inherently produce that oppression, they have to add it in the form of products getting worse.

[–] peereboominc@lemm.ee 22 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I personally think that everything has always gone to shit. But in the downfall, new things will take over until that goes to shit. Or maybe because there are new things the old things will go down.

Take the example of video stores. They used the be the best thing ever. Rent all the movies you would like to see for a small fee per movie. Then downloading and streaming came along. Streaming was cheaper and more convenient. Result: video renting business went to shit.

Then the streaming services started to raise their prices. It started going to shit. Soon new ideas/companies/services will swoop in and the cycle will repeat again.

[–] Eufalconimorph@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yip. Everything is always going to shit, but manure makes good fertilizer.

[–] peereboominc@lemm.ee 9 points 2 years ago

That is an awesome sentence. I will use that one some time.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@feddit.de 21 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Worldwide economic growth is coming to a halt and what we're seeing is the ripples it causes.

[–] Master@lemm.ee 15 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

The tail end of this ripple is large corporations death grip on increased profits every quarter. But the reality is that at some point you can not successfully grow profits past the peak without destroying everything. We are in the initial phase of the destruction onslaught.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] smileyhead@discuss.tchncs.de 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Everyone giving you simple one-word explenation is most probably wrong.

[–] vsis@feddit.cl 10 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"that's capitalism" is the new "the devil did that"

[–] 5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 years ago

This is like reprimanding every weather effect as immediately climate-relevant ('but it rains', 'winter exists'). Whole empires shattered because of over-simplification and maladaptation, visible in the knowledge display of some contemporary heirs and politicians.

[–] gjghkk@lemmy.dbzer0.com 19 points 2 years ago

Capitalism, its bubbles and inflations.

[–] peto@lemm.ee 19 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The problem is that money is permited to generate money. So the more you have beyond the threshold to sustain yourself the more you can generate without labour. The business with no interest loans accelerates things but it isn't the problem. It is that the system rewards idle investors at the expense of those whose labour actually generates value.

Capitalism wasn't fine until someone broke it. The core concepts behind it are flawed.

[–] TWeaK@lemm.ee 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I've said this plenty of times but it bears repeating, the problem isn't capitalism or the type of social structure, the problem is people. Capitalism is a simplistic and ultimately ineffective solution, because it doesn't account for the human problem.

People will always try to game the system. We need a system that recognises and accounts for that.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech 18 points 2 years ago

I think as we get older we just notice more and more. Things are bad but relatively things are also good. Take the bad and the good. Others here are explaining the economy stuff, that explains housing and our tech woes, blah blah blah

Stay informed, fight the good fights, but also take the small moments to stop and think about the positives in your life too. Your family, friends, what you find solace in. There are a lot of negative things, and social media really likes to focus on the negatives, but remember your personal positives too.

[–] sculd 17 points 2 years ago

Neo-liberalism

[–] Phantom_Engineer@lemmy.ml 14 points 2 years ago

But at the same time, this meant companies didn’t have to be profitable, because they could pay out investors from money that other investors gave them???

Few, if any, of the big tech companies were playing out any kind of dividend to investors. It was more that they were content for companies to maybe someday make money as opposed to actually making money,

[–] Colour_me_triggered@lemm.ee 13 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Most bizarre financial decisions can be put down to greed, or stupidity. Usually both.

[–] bermuda 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

lemme tell you about a special gorilla from Cincinnati

[–] fiat_lux@kbin.social 9 points 2 years ago

Our societies have been built around our economies. The underlying premise of our economies is that they must always grow in the long term to sustain itself and generate returns.

Permanent growth is not sustainable. Nothing in this universe just grows forever without significantly changing state. Not even the universe itself or imaginations do that.

Resources are finite and at some point, the costs outweighs the returns. The choice then is how quickly to shrink. A sudden collapse is the most dangerous option but possibly the fastest before returning to growth, a slow shrink is less destructive but for a much longer duration and it may not be fast enough to prevent outright collapse. This is where we are right now, and why banks are tinkering with rates.

The question for me is: Will tinkering with our economies slowly be fast enough to outpace our outstanding environmental debts and the interest accruing on that.

[–] AttackBunny 8 points 2 years ago

Greed, deregulation, and at least in my country, the powers that be don't give a shit about the plebes, but have incentives to destroy the world to feed their already overflowing bank accounts.

[–] Saigonauticon@voltage.vn 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Very generally, you use the central bank rate to control the money supply. You increase it to remove money from the economy.

Even money is affected by supply and demand. Too much money in the economy is one of several things that can cause inflation -- for example because a surplus of money means people value money less and goods/services more. As a result, the value of goods/services as measured in money goes up.

Sadly, these are macro-level problems. Personally having a surplus of money sounds great, but the actual amount of extra money I made during Covid was not that much -- but give that much money to 100 million people and you're going to have inflation (I live in Vietnam where the economy was not seriously impacted).

[–] cecinestpasunbot@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Companies are competing with each other to maximize profit. If there aren’t new markets for them to grow into, companies can only grow by reducing cost and bringing in more revenue. As such they make shittier products while also pushing prices as high as they can go. This is an unfortunate consequence of how capitalism works.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago

Too many reasons to list so I’ll add another

Stocks are only ever allowed to go up, if they go down you risk death

Covid caused massive increase in some stocks, now those companies need to find new ways to create revenue from the base they had prior to Covid to out match the base they had during it

Some companies had drop in stocks during Covid, they need to make it up to their shareholders so they don’t lose confidence

[–] whoisearth@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 years ago

Race to the bottom.

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Your post is obviously mainly about interest rates, which wasn't clear from the headline. Why do you think higher interest rates equal "everything going to shit"?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

But at the same time, this meant companies didn’t have to be profitable, because they could pay out investors from money that other investors gave them???

There's a bit of this, but it's not the main way everything ever worked.

The hiking interest was to combat inflation by discouraging people from borrowing and spending, but the reduction in spending can also push some companies out of business and start a recession. The economy isn't booming but we don't have a global recession yet either, so I'm not sure I'd even say they're "going to shit" at the moment.

[–] mcgravier@kbin.social 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Actually this is because quality of engineering goes down. Noone seems to be able to design a good user interface. My theory is it's because the new generation of designers are rised on Facebook and Twitter. They never saw a good, clean UI in their lives.

[–] squaresinger@feddit.de 5 points 2 years ago

That's a statement that obviously comes from someone who has never worked in this sector.

The real issues here are:

  • Most companies are far too cheap to actually employ a designer. The Windows 8 flat design was made that way, because they saved on designer costs and the flat design meant that managers could do the design themselves using Powerpoint only.
  • Companies pay for features. UX is usually not a feature but an afterthought.
  • When the design looks so outdated that it starts affecting sales, companies bring in contractor designers who have no clue about the product and tell them to "please fix the design". Since they are only on the product for a very short time, they have no idea what the non-obvious requirements are. Instead they focuse on making everything look pretty and modern, because that's what they are paid for. Their customer is the clueless boss who thinks shiny is gold, not the person using the product in the end.

Also:

  • UX design is a real job with it's own requirements and education. That's not something a programmer will "just pick up". This needs to be learned.
  • Managers tend to have their fingers a lot into UI/UX, because that's what they can see. Most of them have no clue about technical stuff, so they generally leave the programmers alone to do their job when it comes to logic, but they mess about a lot with the visual stuff. Generally speaking, if you ask a manager about a complete rehaul of the logic, they only ask about how urgent it is and how much it will cost. But when it comes to the color of a button, they will have a lot to say about that. And this shines through, as many managers honestly have no clue about what they are doing. There are rare exceptions to that rule, but that are usually managers with a technical background. Managers who just have a business degree are poison for software development.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

There isn't an easy statement that explains why things are getting worse.

The housing market, for instance, was being affected by low interest rates. Low rates make being a slum lord more profitable than other forms of investment. This caused a massive amount of investment in the housing market by rich people and corporations, and normal people were priced out.

The banks that failed did so because they either invested in dumb things (crypto) or in long-term bonds. Those bonds lose value as interest rates rise, and SVB invested far too much into them.

There's all kinds of reasons

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DasRubberDuck@feddit.de 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

pay out investors from money that other investors gave them

But nobody would base a serous business on such a premise, would they? This sound like a ponzi scheme!

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

That's how every bank works. If every customer tried to withdraw their money at once they couldn't pay.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›