
Predatory capitalism: Companies won't be remembered for shareholder loyalty but for their excellence
Mine was with a long-term care insurance provider. My parents, both in their 80s, have paid for their policy for decades, so when my dad told me he'd been struggling to submit a claim, I figured I could easily resolve the problem.
Ha. Instead, I found myself tangled in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that was clearly designed to maximize a customer's frustration until they give up. Communications went into the void. Forms were repeatedly lost or rejected for absurd reasons—and even when the company allowed it had received them, it was months before they were accepted, much less processed.
Also Read: Is war risk covered by life insurance? It's never too late to check the policy's fine print
It was a textbook case of what I call predatory capitalism: companies' increasingly common willingness to harm customers in their pursuit of short-term profits.
It's a notorious issue in the insurance industry. Recall the wave of public rage directed at insurers after the killing of UnitedHealthCare CEO Brian Thompson? But it appears elsewhere as well.
Take private equity-owned nursing homes, for example; research has found that when a PE firm takes over, the quality of patient care decreases, as do quality ratings and patient mobility. Meanwhile, pain levels and short-term mortality increase.
Beyond health care, consider online gambling—particularly sports betting. In addition to draining the savings of those who can least afford it, these companies have been accused of using sophisticated analytics to target people with gambling disorders. In fact, researchers say problem gamblers account for a hugely disproportionate fraction of online gambling revenue.
The result? A University of California San Diego study found that when online sportsbooks enter a state, internet searches seeking help for gambling addiction go up by 61%.
Also Read: Siddharth Pai: India's IT firms have a unique opportunity in AI's trust deficit
Companies seek profits. That's their job. And nothing I've described here is illegal. But the law doesn't dictate the bounds of ethics—particularly when companies have vast political power to shape the law for their own benefit. When businesses take advantage of that legal leeway to harm their customers, people's faith in the system and in corporate leadership erodes.
Some companies have always acted badly, but the public's attitude towards business has changed radically in a generation. Gallup polling shows that the percentage of Americans who have 'a great deal" or 'a lot" of confidence in big business has plunged from 30% in 1990 to 16% in 2024.
Why are businesses now so routinely predatory?
It's rooted in the 'financialization" of the American economy. As the financial sector has gotten larger and more powerful, its expectations and demands have changed the behavior of companies in all parts of the economy. That means more companies have made outperforming the market—and delivering the best short-term results—their highest priority.
Businesses that want to improve their numbers to fulfill those demands have, at the highest level, two choices. They can create new customers, or they can squeeze more out of the ones they already have. The first is usually difficult. It requires innovation, inspiration or both. The leaders who can consistently do so become legends—think Steve Jobs or Henry Ford.
The second is easier. A lot easier if you're willing to squeeze people who can't push back, like senior citizens. Might customers who feel cheated or abused abandon you eventually? Sure, but by the time that happens, you'll have banked the necessary profit—and the fallout will be your successor's problem.
Aggregate that attitude across the entire economy and you get rising corporate profits, a booming stock market, low unemployment and a population that increasingly feels like corporate leaders and capitalism see it as prey.
Leaders who are shocked by Americans' distrust (and the attendant rise of politicians preaching socialist politics) might be well-advised to look at many of their fellow CEOs for an explanation. If they want to restore faith in the system, they can start with their own actions.
Also Read: Banking on trust, losing billions: India's bank fraud epidemic needs urgent answers
A few suggestions:
Stop saying that your only responsibility is to maximize shareholder value. As a matter of law, it's not true. And it serves as an excellent excuse for any kind of predatory behaviour.
Acknowledge that some regulation—even regulation that hurts short-term profits—is necessary and even beneficial in the long run. Companies are measured against their competitors. If your rival is goosing its numbers through predation, it puts enormous pressure on you to do the same. Regulation can solve that problem for you, and business leaders should be unafraid to call for banning behavior that they know is morally unacceptable, however profitable it might seem.
Act as stewards, not predators. A predator feasts and leaves nothing behind. A steward's chief responsibility is to leave things better than he or she found it. Being a corporate steward means building a company that will endure—and requires an honest relationship with customers.
Predators are feared and despised. Stewards are honored and loved. Which one would you rather be? ©Bloomberg
The author is a Bloomberg columnist.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
$600 stimulus payment for adult and dependent child in US soon? What you should know
Senator Josh Hawley introduced the "American Worker Rebate Act of 2025," proposing rebate checks for working Americans funded by Trump's tariffs. The plan suggests a minimum of $600 per adult and child, phasing out for higher-income couples. However, the bill faces significant hurdles, including Republican opposition, economic concerns, and potential inflationary effects, making its passage unlikely. The bill proposes 'at least' $600 for every adult and dependent child. For example, if you're a family of four, you'd get $2,400 Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Will you be getting $600 stimulus payment? Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What is $600 stimulus payment and why you won't get it? Republican Senator Josh Hawley introduced the 'American Worker Rebate Act of 2025' — a bill that would send rebate checks to working Americans, funded by revenue from President Donald Trump's tariff policies. The proposal was expected to provide a huge financial relief to millions of people in the United is weighing a bill that would send Americans hundreds of dollars in the form of tariff rebate checks in a bid to soften the financial blow of the administration's new tariffs. The bill proposes 'at least' $600 for every adult and dependent child. For example, if you're a family of four, you'd get $2,400. The amounts would phase out for married couples making over $150,000 a year.'Like President Trump proposed, my legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump's tariffs are returning to this country,' Hawley said in a legislation regarding tariff rebate introduced by Josh Hawley in late July 2025 must be approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives before going to the president. There are significant obstacles to its passing right now: Sen. Hawley's fellow Republicans in the Senate are less than enthusiastic about the bill, and several economists have voiced concerns that it won't provide the relief consumers are looking for amid bill is also facing criticism from other Republican senators, who call it a "bad idea" and "unsustainable" due to the federal cost of approximately $164 billion, according to a report in Marca. This is compounded by skepticism from several economists who doubt that the measure will provide the financial relief that consumers need. Despite the fact the President Trump has endorsed the idea, his strained relationship with Hawley makes it unlikely that they will work together to move the project project, spearheaded by Hawley, is called the "Reimbursement for American Workers Act" and consists of sending direct checks to US households funded by revenues generated from tariffs imposed on foreign products. The plan seeks to send a minimum of $600 for each adult and dependent minor. If tariff revenue exceeds projections for 2025, the bill could allow for 'a larger credit per person.'Josh Hawley's proposal to send tariff rebate checks faces insurmountable hurdles. On the one hand, the lack of enthusiasm from Republicans in Congress themselves, who have already passed a bill costing $4.1 trillion in the last decade, makes any new spending initiative addition, several senators, including James Lankford, Ron Johnson and Roger Marshall, have publicly opposed the idea, suggesting that the funds be used to pay down the national himself is open to the idea. Asked at the White House about a possible rebate for Americans from tariff revenue, he told reporters: 'We're thinking about that. We have so much money coming in, we're thinking about a little rebate.'To be fair, Trump also said the 'big thing we want to do is pay down debt' — but added that 'a little rebate for people of a certain income level might be very nice.''I don't believe a rebate would make for sound policy,' Alex Durante, senior economist at the Tax Foundation, told CNBC. 'I'd much rather see that revenue directed toward reducing the deficit than handing out checks to individuals.'Critics also caution that such payments could reignite inflationary pressures — a problem that has persisted since the pandemic-era stimulus.'Recipients are likely to spend at least part of that money, which would drive up demand, push prices higher, and potentially intensify inflation,' said Joseph Rosenberg, senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
China urges US to ease AI chip export controls for trade deal: Report
China wants the United States to ease export controls on chips critical for artificial intelligence as part of a trade deal before a possible summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping, the Financial Times reported on Sunday. Chinese officials have told experts in Washington that Beijing wants the Trump administration to relax export restrictions on high-bandwidth memory chips, the newspaper reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the matter. The White House, State Department and China's foreign ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the report. HBM chips, which help perform data-intensive AI tasks quickly, are closely watched by investors due to their use alongside AI graphic processors, particularly Nvidia's. The FT said China is concerned because the U.S. HBM controls hamper the ability of Chinese companies such as Huawei to develop their own AI chips. Successive U.S. administrations have curbed exports of advanced chips to China, looking to stymie Beijing's AI and defence development. While this has impacted U.S. firms' ability to fully address booming demand from China, one of the world's largest semiconductor markets, it still remains an important revenue driver for American chipmakers.


The Hindu
2 hours ago
- The Hindu
Farmers, workers to stage protest in Vijayawada on August 13 against U.S. tariffs, ‘anti-farmer' policies
Farmers, workers, and people's organisations have called for a protest at Dharna Chowk here on August 13, demanding that the United States withdraw the 50% tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump on Indian exports. They urged the Central Government not to bow to American pressure and to safeguard the interests of Indian farmers and workers. The call was given at a meeting held here on Sunday, attended by trade union leaders Mooli Sambasiva Rao and N.C.H. Srinivas, Andhra Pradesh Tenant Farmers Association State general secretary P. Jamalayya, Rythu Sangham State vice-president Malneedi Yellamandar Rao, Rythu Sangham district secretary P.V. Anjaneyulu, and trade union leaders A.V.R., K.R. Anjaneyulu, Kasani Ganesh Babu, V. Lakshmana Rao, K. Basavayya, and V. Lakshminarayana, among others. Speakers criticised the BJP-led Central Government for introducing policies 'more dangerous than the now-repealed three farm laws.' They alleged that amendments to the Agricultural Market Act were designed to serve the interests of foreign and domestic corporate exporters and importers, warning that such measures would ultimately dismantle the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system and end government procurement, dealing a severe blow to farmers. They also accused the government of scrapping the Price Stabilisation Fund in this year's budget, slashing subsidies on fertilizers and farm equipment, and banning tractors over 10 years old — all of which, they said, would increase the burden on farmers. On the international trade front, the leaders alleged that ever since Mr. Donald Trump returned to power, he had been pressuring India to sign a Free Trade Agreement while simultaneously imposing 50% tariffs on Indian exports. 'While Mr. Trump threatens, our Prime Minister remains silent — this is dangerous,' they said. The protest organisers demanded that the Free Trade Agreement talks be abandoned, the new market laws harmful to farmers be repealed, the 50% tariffs be withdrawn, and the four labour codes detrimental to workers be scrapped. They said the demonstration is part of a nationwide agitation called by the Samyukta Kisan Morcha under the slogan 'Quit Corporate' and urged farmers, tenant farmers, workers, agricultural labourers, students, youth, women, and the general public to participate in large numbers to make the event a success.