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???

  • Millie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Lemmylaugh@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Ok but what you are asking is to crash the market, that will lead to more harm than good. Any better less drastic idea?

            • radix@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              Is it evil to prioritize human life over the state of the market?

              Is it good to prioritize the economy over human lives?

    • Gyoza Power@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Samus Crankpork@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

    • gramathy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      It boils down to companies only trading on their value and not paying a dividend. Without a dividend, a company has to grow to provide value to its shareholders - with a dividend a shareholder would profit simply from the company making money.

    • Mighty Weaksauce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Odwala and Naked are different companies. Odwalla was bought by Coca Cola and then closed in 2020. I think full sail bought it and is reopening it. Naked was started in my hometown and eventually bought by Tropicana, still up and running.

    • aubertlone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thank you for the nostalgia blast.

      I do remember loving odwalla, specifically the carrot juice. But this was more than a decade ago, when I was still in high school.

      Never remember them rebranding as naked juice. Although I do remember picking up naked juice on two separate occasions wondering how the taste would be. Two times was enough to learn the taste wasn’t worth the price.

    • blackbrook@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      What you describe is the basic structure in our economy that drives this, but the answer to why the enshittification has been accelerating, is technology. Advances in technology, particularly information technology, progressively enable corporations to be more efficient at all this, including more efficient at gaming the political system and manipulating users and customers.

      If you look back nostalgically at some time decades ago when things were less bad, it’s because things were less efficient and humanity was more likely to sometimes get in the way of the machine that we’ve built having it’s way with us.

    • quicksand@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Ohhhh Naked is watered down Odwalla. Can’t believe I never made that connection but it all makes sense now. Used to love Odwalla, kind of like Naked if I missed lunch or something

    • SuddenDownpour@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      I mean, sure, that will solve some things. Not climate change, though. I think we can aim for a little higher, but when I say that perhaps seeking infinite growth in a finite planet might lead to an environmental catastrophe that’s somehow controversial.

  • timeisart@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Is capitalism dying or will it just get more and more ruthless until like 10 people have 99.999% of the wealth? Is there a difference? Either way it seems like humanity will have to make a choice soon whether we want to keep propping up a system that has fundamentally failed them.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Laissez-faire economics and libertarian ideals (a-la Atles Shrugged) destroy society. I don’t know that anyone has nailed down a good balance of personal liberty, social justice, and (individual) wealth; I suspect one of the nordic models is closest, but fuck if I know.

      What I’m pretty sure of is that countries with laissez-faire models are like virulent diseases. They’re aggressive and successful, until they kill the host and collape. To compete, other countries have to adopt similar models. I think the host in this metaphor is the planet, but we’re seeing some indication that the social immune system in the US is responding, with a resurgence on union activity. And it’s possible that one of nature’s balancing tools (diseases such as COVID, SARS, etc) will help with the environmental impact; I don’t see that as a global community we’re doing so well at managing our environmental resources responsibly, so if nature doesn’t cause a great purge, we may simply extinct ourselves and moot the issue.

      Edit: Whilst I’m preaching… I believe capitalism is the best economic system we’ve found. I believe some tools in capitalism have unintended, and deleterious consequences. In particular, the stock market, and usury. Both are tools that generate money directly from money (“investing” and “interest”), and both IMHO are responsible for most of the excesses of capitalism.

      • Robaque@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Nordic models are a mix of social democracy and corporatism. Definitely not free and definitely not the answer.

    • Knusper@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I guess, most specifically the offerings from mega-corporations. I was quoting a hyperbole there, I did not mean to actually talk about everything.

  • Lauchs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    So just to answer the parts that didn’t make sense to you…

    Basically, interest rates were so low that investors would throw huge sums of money at companies that might one day pay off huge (called moonshots. Basically, everyone wanted a piece of the next google.)

    This was fine because with low interest rates, there weren’t secure guaranteed other investments those investors could be making.

    But now, investors can, fairly safely, put their money into t bills (basically, lending it to government which is traditionally exceptionally safe) and get a decent return.

    So investors are ready to pull their money out unless they see some sort of return. Hence, a site like reddit is now trying desperately to monetize so as to turn a profit or to go public, sell shares and reward the initial investors.

    The central banks bit… Typically, the way to fight inflation is to slow the economy down by raising interest rates. When interest rates are high, it costs more to borrow so it’s harder to get capital to start a business, grow business etc which slows the economy and, in theory, slows inflation.

    Happy to clarify!

    • Knusper@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thanks! I guess, I posed this question badly as most of the other folks came here to philosophize or rant.

      If you’re doing those moonshots and a company isn’t profitable, does that mean you don’t get paid out in the meantime? You just keep your money in there, because the company’s valuation rises, which makes your x% company ownership worth more, right?

      Right, and with inflation, we just need to slow it, i.e. stretch it over a longer period of time, because we have automatic processes in place to adjust for a certain rate of inflation over a fixed period of time (like for example work contracts that include an automatic pay raise every year).

      • Lauchs@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        does that mean you don’t get paid out in the meantime?

        Usually, yup. Investment deal structure varies but generally that’s the case. You can sometimes borrow money to buy out an original investor, which is what I think what part of your earlier explanation bit meant.

        Right, and with inflation, we just need to slow it, i.e. stretch it over a longer period of time

        Basically, yeah. We kind of just accept there will be some degree of inflation… I don’t recall any arguments as to why zero inflation would be bad but I think inflation’s existenxe is just a fact of economic life. So we want to spread it out in an orderly fashion so those processes you correctly listed can quietly do their thing.

      • amio@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        I guess, I posed this question badly as most of the other folks came here to philosophize or rant.

        Not really, that’s just how this place is.

        • Knusper@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 years ago

          Well, part of posing it badly was to post it to AskLemmy, because yeah, this is more just an opinion community. I probably should’ve gone to some finance-related community, but couldn’t think of one, off the top of my head…

  • C4d@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Cory Doctorow (pluralistic.net) has a number of stories now on the concept of “enshittification”. Basically businesses start off being good to customers but eventually get to a point where, if they’re dominant the drive for endless profit results in them turning to squeezing suppliers, customers, everyone.

    Tech enables new forms of exploitation.

  • Resol van Lemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Because 2013 happened. And 2013 was bullshit. I’m sure Adobe Creative Cloud, iOS 7 and the Xbox One would gladly explain that to you. Oh, and I forgot Vine. I mean, it was really good, but it basically led to Musical.ly, which led to TikTok. YouTube also got rid of the customisable channel page, instead giving us a simple banner instead (I said instead 3 times now). And did I mention fingerprint scanners on phones? I’m sure you all remember Facebook Home. You don’t? Well, you’re better off not remembering it. Also, they killed Brian Griffin only to ressurect him from the dead all of a sudden. And finally, Office 2013. There’s nothing wrong with it, it just looked like garbage.

    All of this led to the dystopian lifestyle we’re currently living in.

      • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        It’s very adaptable, I imagine it will continue to adapt. But those processes are clearly occurring, and the extent of the inequality being generated is bizarre.

  • Nonameuser678@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    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.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Everything isn’t going to shit. The sky is still blue, food is growing, people have good lives.

    The current economic issues are cyclical in nature, due to our form of global capitalism, we have 7-10 year up swings and down swings.

    • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t think this is really true, and maybe it’s even a little naive.

      For example, 50 years ago earning a “living wage” was much more achievable.

      Also, issues we’re presently facing like war related sanctions, china’s instability, and climate change have never occurred before, so how can they be cyclical?

    • qwertyWarlord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, I was going to say the same thing. “Everything” is quite the exaggeration, most people are just fine without junk tech companies. Things are more expensive and they’ll probably keep getting more expensive because they’ve been out of balance for decades. Food, gas etc. should be more expensive, we’ve just been blessed with cheap labor and subsidies. Climate issues aside we’re all going to be just fine

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Depends on where you live. Many countries have been on an upswing for the last 10 years. Better access to resources health care technology. Net improvement for the human race.

        If you’re talking about an American perspective there was an upswing in 2010 to 2020.

  • JeffCraig@citizensgaming.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    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

    • ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes economics is the study of how people determine what is valuable and how valuable things are divided. People are complex and irrational so it’s difficult to come up with a simple explanation of economic trends.

  • Call me Lenny/Leni@lemm.eeBanned from community
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Different entities rely on each other too much, so when a number of them have gone down, it began to drag the rest down, like a human tower that could no longer hold itself up. It doesn’t help people think nothing needs to change about their economy, like maybe add a few rules on how it works, no reform needed. But no, apparently it’s perfect.