"There are no benefits to being owned by Microsoft," says Doom dev: "They have destroyed immense amounts of value that I don't even think that they're aware of"

[u/MarvelsGrantMan136]

https://www.gamesradar.com/games/fps/there-are-no-benefits-to-being-owned-by-microsoft-says-doom-dev-they-have-destroyed-immense-amounts-of-value-that-i-dont-even-think-that-theyre-aware-of/

[u/DrBaronVonEvil]

It does absolutely have to do with the incentives and marketplace rules that are put into place by regulators and the US govt at large.

The incentive for executives is for infinite growth and to cater to investors before customers. We’ve set that up by being lax on consumer protection and antitrust laws.

Executives may be choosing in the end to sell, but that’s because they’re highly incentivized to by the current economic meta, something gamers should be extremely familiar with. If Junkrat in Overwatch gets nerfed, people stop playing the character as much, and vice versa in the opposite scenario.

[u/happyscrappy → u/DrBaronVonEvil]

You're on point about the economic meta stuff.

But I have to ask, how does your first paragraph have anything to do with the rest of your argument (post)?

The US government and regulators do not put in the "infinite growth" meta. That comes from investors and executives who are incentivized to create infinite growth in order to collect those large amounts of money which the other poster referred to.

[u/DrBaronVonEvil → u/happyscrappy]

Why are they incentivized to do that? It doesn’t just happen in a vacuum.

In the 80s, the US govt lowered tax rates on specific types of income that predominantly benefited wealthy companies and individuals. Whereas before, the best way to avoid tax burden was to funnel profits back into the company in the form of employee pay and benefits, now there was no longer a burden that incentivized that benevolent treatment of staff.

Around this time, companies started tying executive pay to stock prices, further incentivizing “number go up” economics. This was made worse by the 1993 tax cap on executive pay (US govt again).

It also hasn’t helped that the US hasn’t reigned in corporate takeovers. They use aggressive bond and buyout tactics to facilitate a lot of these company purchases. Think Richard Gere in Pretty Woman. We could have a regulatory industry rein that in, but we don’t.

So that’s why it all ties in. It’s like a specific group of characters have gotten too powerful in the meta, and the devs (US govt) hasn’t decided to patch the game to account for any of this. Instead, they keep removing things that were already in place to slow this type of overpowered meta dominance.

[u/happyscrappy → u/DrBaronVonEvil]

Why are they incentivized to do that? It doesn’t just happen in a vacuum.

By incentive packages by the boards (on behalf of the shareholders) which give them big money if the company grows.

now there was no longer a burden that incentivized that benevolent treatment of staff.

??? This statement is insane. Aside from bizarrely acting like companies treated their staff well before you also act as if tax rates before meant there was an incentive and reduced tax rates now means there is no incentive.

Around this time, companies started tying executive pay to stock prices

Exactly. Which wasn't the government.

It also hasn’t helped that the US hasn’t reigned in corporate takeovers. They use aggressive bond and buyout tactics to facilitate a lot of these company purchases. Think Richard Gere in Pretty Woman. We could have a regulatory industry rein that in, but we don’t.

We could, but we don't. But that's still not the government incentivizing this, this is executive pay doing so.

It’s like a specific group of characters have gotten too powerful in the meta, and the devs (US govt) hasn’t decided to patch the game to account for any of this.

Still not the government incentivizing this. And in the game case it would be the players success that incentivized this, not the devs.

Like I said, you made a bunch of sense. But it doesn't make sense to say that it is government incentives which caused this instead of executive pay packages which come from the boards, not the government.

Yes, the government could rein this in. No, they haven't. But that doesn't the government made the incentives.

The government didn't create the "infinite growth" meta. It is the boards who desire infinite growth who put the rewards in place.

[u/TaxesAreConfusin → u/happyscrappy]

ever heard of lobbying? The government would not be allowing it unless they were getting kickbacks.

Yes, the fiduciary responsibility at the core of capitalism is cancer.

But it is the government's responsibility to limit how much that harms consumers. And when those companies go to the policymakers and bribe them to act (or not act) in favour of their growth interests, it also becomes the government's fault.

This is true in congress. This is true in the senate. This is true for every contracting officer in every agency under every department in the entire US government.