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.
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”
These emergent institutional entities are themselves the gut biota of Moloch.
Reminder that capitalism is a system where companies cannot afford to consistently do the right thing. Therefore Capitalism must be abolished entirely.
My greatest wish is the fall of the dollar for exactly this reason. This is the result I want. I want capitalism to collapse. Worldwide. And it will sooner or later. But I’d prefer sooner. Capitalism cannot survive. Infinite growth + finite resources = inevitable collapse. Dependence on the US Dollar is how this all got as bad as it has. We were the snake oil salesman selling capitalism to the world. With extreme prejudice where deemed necessary.
I’m 100% sure I won’t survive that crash. But if the human race is to survive. Capitalism has to end. Or at least be wrestled into submission. We can’t flee to space. We can’t farm the asteroid belt for resources. We’re a couple years from AGI. Climate change is happening live. We see it every single day. As of right now we don’t have a future. End of this century maybe. Maybe.
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.
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.
Their job is to attain shareholder value, not to legislate healthcare.
Client Profile: UnitedHealth Group
Total Lobbying Expenditures, 2025: $3,370,000
:-/ Strange to spend $3.3M in an effort to shape legislation if that’s not your job.
Whats your plan then, shame them for lobbying as well?
Once we have sufficiently shamed all corporations will we live in a utopia.
Whats your plan then
So get the government to do something. That makes more sense.
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.
Actually they’re wrong to do it
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.
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.
This is a vicious thing to do
If you get into the weeds, the issue isn’t that UHC updated their coverage policies and practices. It is that they did so without notifying shareholders first.
Incidentally, one upshot of this lawsuit will be a long period of discovery during which UHC will attempt to prove it is fulfilling its fiduciary duty by showing off how many cruel and nefarious methods it uses to fuck over its clients. So, while you might shit on Blackrock for “viciously” exposing UHC’s internal practices to the light of day, I’ve gotta say that I am seeing nothing but positive outcomes as a result.
Wait. What’s the deal with vanguard? I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone harp on them
send more blue shells
The Punchline That Isn’t Funny
BlackRock will probably win this lawsuit. Or settle for millions. Either way, they’ll extract value from a system designed to extract life from patients.
They’re not just suing UnitedHealth — they’re suing the very idea that health insurance should provide health insurance. They’re fighting for their constitutional right to profit when people die and lose money when people live.
Welcome to American healthcare, where caring too much is a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Dear Sweet Mother of God, this article does not hold back on the biting truth.
It’s a worthwhile read with only one small mistake contained within:
Luigi Mangione didn’t just kill a CEO
There is no reliable evidence to suggest Mr. Mangione killed anyone. And I, for one, remain convinced he did not do that deed.
Hope Mangione is found innocent and he suits the shit out off all the media companies that declared guilty without any proof.
I’m fully convinced that if it ever starts looking like he might legitimately walk, he’ll be Epstein’d. They want to keep that option for last resorts only because they understand the optics behind it, but I’m sure it’s not completely off the table.
I doubt it in this case. He’s not holding onto any secrets that he might spill. Killing him is only to their advantage if it sends a message “don’t mess with us or you’ll die”. That works if he’s convicted and executed, that doesn’t work if it’s seen as “a company will just assassinate you”. They’d have to keep the assassination a secret, which would defeat the purpose.
But he has become a symbol greater than himself.
To wit:
You can’t kill an idea
In any case, if he is not convicted and walks free then the people will know that the actual shooter was never caught and that there were no consequences for his action. The only thing they can truly do is prolong this case for as long as is necessary so that the people can never be 100% sure that they didn’t catch the actual shooter, or so they forget this all ever happened at all.
sues* of*
There is no reliable evidence to suggest Mr. Mangione killed anyone.
I’m so sick of everyone making me repeat myself with this:
Luigi was.
With me.
The morning.
Of the murder.
He physically could not have committed the crime from another location. We were setting up for our friend’s dad’s birthday party and he was busy getting the balloons ready.
Not guilty.
Can confirm, I was there too. It was an early one and we had to get him up, I remember; that guy could sleep through like fifteen alarms.
Like Brian Thompson, Larry Fink, CEO of Blackrock, is one of the people that Luigi Mangione didn’t kill.
Thank you for this link. Goodness, this guy is a horrible human being.
I keep coming back to this, but why do the evil twisted fucks behind evil PURE evil shit always have comedic “cartoon villain” names like fucking Fink?!
I like nominative determinism better when it’s funny.
It actually doesn’t hold back on the biting lie, their source says pretty much the opposite and the lawsuit is about earnings forecasts and stock price manipulation.
It’s worth noting that this is a blog post, and not reporting from an accountable journalistic agency.
I don’t see anything obviously incorrect, but it’s worth noting the source.
I’m pretty sure a piano fell on that guy.
That’s a thing you can sue for?
Yes, shareholders in the US have rights to sue when their investments don’t return profits as promised.
This is one of the biggest drivers of corporate greed in the US.
Investments are supposed to be a gamble. Imagine losing at the casino and then suing the casino because you didn’t get the advertised jackpot.
That’s the problem with our entire system!
I’m pretty anti capitalist and wish the whole system would fuck off but they’re not suing because of the lack of performance of their investment, they’re alleging that United didn’t give necessary information to investors
This is unfortunately true, they’ll likely win the case on that angle.
My point is that legislation shouldn’t guarantee earnings from gambling under unforeseen circumstances. That’s just gambling.
Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making “the big bucks” because they’re taking on “the big risks”? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can’t think of any CEOs who’ve ever actually incurred risks from their “gambles.” They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can’t deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don’t make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)
The CEOs aren’t making any risks at all, it’s the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.
This isn’t about a failed bet. It’s about investors not being informed of the changes.
It’s closer to having the odds and rules explained, then having the casino change both retroactively after they’ve taken your money.
You can sue for everything. If you win is another question.
Did you know? Blackrock is the corporation that all evil corporations in fiction are based off of.
me thinks 1 Luigi was not enough Luigi’s. more Luigi’s may be required.
in Mario Kart
Luigi appears to CEO in a nightmare
CEO: “Waaaaah! Luigi!!!”
Luigi: “No, just the regular one.”
Given the obesity rate in the US, we may also need a few Marios.
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.
It’s called freaking Blackrock. It’s just one step away from Mount Doom or the eye of sauron.
Hello my American friends, as an observer from outside, it looks to me like you all need some of that “democracy” you’ve been bombing across the world for decades.
More than half of us agree with you but overcoming the inertia necessary to change our current condition of minority-majority rule is apparently going to take some kind of political (if not literal*) bomb.
*Not advocating violence, just feeling hopeless about the likelihood that we meaningfully change things at this point through anything short of an actual revolution.
It’s very difficult to use logic and try to reason with hatred. Majority of people genuinely want to settle disputes peacefully but it’s getting harder and harder to deny that’s simply not going to work against a minority of loud, angry and ignorant people cheering on a demagogue.
Historically, it has been violent unfortunately, and I don’t see that changing in this situation. Just hoping the violence is aimed at the right people soon before more innocent people die.
I agree that your entire political system needs a massive overhaul. Far too many lobby groups are spending stupid money to make money, leaving the majority of Americans voices when voting redundant. I wish you luck but I can’t see an easy way out of this for you.
🙃 weeeeee
ITT:
Sweet. Get Luigi on the phone.
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?
The judge in court listening to this from the lawyere: sigh.
You know what would be really funny?
I fink I do !
damn that’s cryptic
damn I suck at this. A common chaffinch perched on a twig. I got nothing 😖
Sounds like they’re admitting the CEO murder brought about a good change. We should do it more often 🙂
Sounds like we have a great candidate
So BR CEO next?
Technically this article cites CBS News who says the lawsuit is about stock price manipulations and earnings forecasts as well as UnitedHealth being directly responsible for higher denial rates.
So, no, the lawsuit doesn’t admit the CEO murder brought about a good change. Quite the opposite, actually.
Will nobody rid me of this meddlesome BlackRock CEO?
I have no love for him but the lawyers are actually arguing that UHC never disclosed that they would be denying rates at higher numbers than competitors. Meaning this article, according to it’s own cited source, is lying.
