←back to thread

The feds are coming for John Deere over the right to repair

(gizmodo.com)
568 points rntn | 6 comments | 18 Oct 24 16:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.873s | source | bottom
Show context
chasil ◴[18 Oct 24 17:39 UTC] No.41881693[source]▶
There was also a fatality in the last workplace strike.

Deere seems to have bad relations with their employees, customers, and regulatory bodies.

The shareholders should remove the board of directors.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/2021/...

replies(4): >>41882429 #>>41883250 #>>41883570 #>>41884505 #
onlyrealcuzzo ◴[18 Oct 24 19:02 UTC] No.41882429[source]▶
The shareholders don't care about any of that if they think the board did a decent job of propping up the stock price.

Firing a board is generally risky, and the shareholders probably haven't fired them because even though the board has, almost objectively, not been good - firing them is likely even worse for the stock short term, and there aren't a lot of long-term, active investors left in the world.

replies(3): >>41882589 #>>41883100 #>>41885612 #
badsandwitch ◴[18 Oct 24 20:20 UTC] No.41883100[source]▶
Tragedy of the commons is why short term is all that matters and will ever matter to non-ideological investors.

If an action that hurts the stock short-term but will help int he long-term needs to be performed why would you as an investor enact it or even stay for the ride?

You are better off either opposing it or selling your stock and then waiting to see if someone will enact the changes, then you have the "insider" information to know that the short-term stock drop was a good thing for the long-term and rebuy the shares cheaper.

replies(3): >>41883351 #>>41888671 #>>41888696 #
kennywinker ◴[18 Oct 24 20:47 UTC] No.41883351[source]▶
> Tragedy of the commons is why short term is all that matters and will ever matter to non-ideological investors.

Tragedy of the commons was an ideological essay designed to justify privatization of public goods. It was disproven by data before it was published. I am sure there are some hyper specific examples where it has happened as described, but as a “fact” about the world and as a justification for any course of action, it’s highly suspect.

https://aeon.co/essays/the-tragedy-of-the-commons-is-a-false...

replies(5): >>41884101 #>>41884241 #>>41884329 #>>41884471 #>>41898271 #
eutropia ◴[18 Oct 24 22:34 UTC] No.41884101[source]▶
This is the first I've heard that it's false; however it seems like many times in my life I've observed something suffering, seemingly from lack of ownership despite being a common good.

What do you call that if you can't call it a tragedy of the commons?

replies(2): >>41884839 #>>41893264 #
1. reaperman ◴[19 Oct 24 01:10 UTC] No.41884839[source]▶
On HN I’ve seen regular claims that “tragedy of the commons has been disproven”. I’ve not yet identified which social bubble propagates this or what it is based on but there seems to be some niche in which people are being taught that it is categorically proven to be an invalid concept.
replies(2): >>41885859 #>>41893273 #
2. bombcar ◴[19 Oct 24 05:37 UTC] No.41885859[source]▶
It's more than one person - it happened in a recent comment I made: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41758008

I suspect some popular blog/YouTube channel made some waves around it.

replies(1): >>41886042 #
3. 9dev ◴[19 Oct 24 06:31 UTC] No.41886042[source]▶
That persons argumentation is awful, however. Another patient soul took the time to challenge the idea with logic, and there wasn’t much actually supporting the idea in response.
replies(1): >>41893342 #
4. kennywinker ◴[20 Oct 24 06:11 UTC] No.41893273[source]▶
> I am sure there are some hyper specific examples where it has happened as described, but as a “fact” about the world and as a justification for any course of action, it’s highly suspect.

You read that and understood “categorically proven to be an invalid concept”?

replies(1): >>41893528 #
5. kennywinker ◴[20 Oct 24 06:25 UTC] No.41893342{3}[source]▶
I’d just like to note that i disagree with your summarization. They defend their perspective quite well imo
6. reaperman ◴[20 Oct 24 07:11 UTC] No.41893528[source]▶
I hope it was clear to most readers of my comment that I was talking about a general line of rhetoric rather than this specific post.

However, from the parent comment I keyed in on your quote less, and much more on:

> It was disproven

FWIW.