When does capitalism become predatory?
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 had been struggling – unsuccessfully – to submit a claim, I figured I could easily resolve the problem.
Instead, I found myself tangled in a Kafkaesque bureaucracy that was clearly designed to maximise 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.
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 is a notorious issue in the insurance industry (remember the wave of public rage directed at insurers after the killing of United HealthCare chief executive officer Brian Thompson?), but it appears elsewhere as well.
Take private equity (PE)-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 healthcare, 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.
BT in your inbox
Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.
Sign Up
Sign Up
In fact, researchers say problem gamblers account for a hugely disproportionate fraction of online gambling revenue. 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 per cent.
Companies seek profits. That is their job. And nothing I have described here is illegal. But the law does not 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 per cent in 1990 to 16 per cent in 2024.
Why are businesses now so routinely predatory? It is rooted in the 'financialisation' of the American economy. As the financial sector has gotten larger and more powerful, its expectations and demands have changed the behaviour 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 fulfil 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 are willing to squeeze people who cannot push back, like senior citizens. Might customers who feel cheated or abused abandon you eventually? Sure, but by the time that happens, you would 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. Here are a few suggestions.
Hashtags

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


AsiaOne
44 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
South Korea says it has no written pact on US trade deal, Asia News
SEOUL - There is no written agreement yet on a trade deal between South Korea and the United States announced by President Donald Trump this week, the Asian nation's trade minister said on Friday (Aug 1). The US tariff on South Korean imports will be 15 per cent, Trump said after meeting its ministers on Wednesday, down from a threatened 25 per cent, but the US gave scarce details, apart from social media posts by him and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. Speaking to reporters as he arrived home from a visit to Washington, Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said the two sides had an oral negotiation because of time constraints. "What we felt during this negotiation is that the US trade environment is fundamentally changing. This is completely different from the first Trump term," Yeo said of the deal easing tension with a top-10 trading partner and key Asian ally. "I think we are entering a new normal era. So, although we have overcome this crisis, we cannot be relieved, because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again." The White House, which issued factsheets on trade deals with Japan and the European Union a day after striking them, has not yet released a separate one on the pact with South Korea. Trump said South Korea would invest $350 (S$450 billion) billion in the United States in projects "owned and controlled by the United States" and selected by him. Lutnick said 90 per cent of profits from the investments would go to the American people, while White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said they would go to the US government to help repay debt. More discussions were necessary on the investment fund's profit structure, said Industry Minister Kim Jung-kwan, who returned with Yeo. [[nid:720806]] Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol, also one of the negotiation team, said detailed plans for the $350-billion investment would need be established. Wednesday's deal did not tackle most non-tariff barriers discussed during working-level talks, as well as security and foreign exchange aspects.
Business Times
3 hours ago
- Business Times
India aghast at Donald Trump's ‘dead' economy jibe, 25% tariffs
[MUMBAI] Shock, dismay and angst swept across India as businesses, policymakers and citizens digested US President Donald Trump's sharp remarks and a surprise 25 per cent tariff rate earlier this week. While Indian government officials weighed a response and business groups tallied the cost of the trade barrier, the local social media flared up with users protesting Trump's comments and criticising Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi for not speaking up. It started with Trump saying that India's trade barriers were the 'most strenuous and obnoxious', in a Truth Social post on Jul 30. He added the US may also impose a penalty for New Delhi's purchase of Russian weapons and energy. Less than a day later, he ripped into India again for aligning with Russia, calling them 'dead economies' in another post. With no imminent trade deal, the 25 per cent tariffs kicked in as at Friday. India is hardly alone in facing Trump's trade wrath, and not the subject to the very highest rates, but the news left business and political leaders wondering how to cope with the fallout. 'Blunt-force' message 'Overnight, the US-India trade equation shifted from tense to turbulent,' said Akshat Garg, assistant vice-president at Choice Wealth, a Mumbai-based financial services firm. The levies 'feel less like structured policy and more like a blunt-force political message'. Complicating the narrative around the India trade deal, or the lack of it, was the US pact with its traditional rival Pakistan that came through on the same day. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up As the US released rates across the world on Aug 1, India's relative disadvantage to competitor exporting countries became more apparent, dampening moods and stoking tempers further. 'The biggest blow is that Pakistan and Bangladesh got a better rate than us,' V Elangovan, managing director at SNQS Internationals, an apparel maker in the southern Indian manufacturing hub of Tirupur, told Bloomberg News. 'We were expecting something in the 15 to 20 per cent range.' India's annoyance can be traced back in part to Trump declaring himself the peacemaker that helped broker a ceasefire in the armed conflict between India and Pakistan in May. The move was seen as an effort to upstage Modi and put the two South Asian neighbours on an equal footing, despite India's larger military and economy. The events of this week have cemented that impression further in the eyes of some Indian observers. When the tariff rate news first dropped in late Wednesday evening in India, Ashish Kanodia recalls being 'very disturbed'. A director at Kanodia Global, a closely held exporter that gets over 40 per cent of its revenue from the US selling home fabrics to toys, the entrepreneur already has two of its largest US customers seeking discounts to make up for the levy. 'The next six months are going to be difficult for everyone,' Kanodia said, adding that profit margins will be squeezed. If the pain continues for 'months and months', he said that he will have to start cutting his workforce. The US is India's largest trading partner, with the two-way trade between them at an estimated US$129.2 billion in 2024. Compared with India's 25 per cent, Bangladesh was subjected to a 20 per cent tariff, Vietnam got a 20 per cent levy and Indonesia and Pakistan each received 19 per cent duties. 'We know that we have got a deal that is worse than other countries,' said Sabyasachi Ray, executive director at The Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council. 'We will take it up with the government.' Trump's actions mark a 180-degree turn for New Delhi's hopes of preferential treatment over regional peers. It was among the first to engage Washington in trade talks in February, confident of hammering out a deal sooner than others. Trump had called India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi 'my friend' in a Feb 14 post on X and the bond between the two countries 'special'. India is now weighing options to placate the White House, including boosting US imports, Bloomberg News reported, citing sources familiar with the matter, and many hope that the bilateral relationship and the tariff rate can still be improved. 'It is a storm in the India-US relationship at this moment, but I think there's a good chance that it will go away,' Vivek Mishra, deputy director of the Strategic Studies Programme at Delhi-based Observer Researcher Foundation, told Bloomberg News. Indian business and trade groups are supporting the government's stance on the deal as the negotiations for a US-India trade deal continue. Negotiating tactic Jewellery businesses 'are worried but they are not panicking' because they hope a more favourable deal can be worked out, said Ray of the gems export body. 'The negotiation that should be happening should be a win-win, not a win-lose.' The abrupt announcement by Trump over social media when negotiations with India were ongoing 'seems like a knee-jerk reaction', according to Rohit Kumar, founding partner at public policy research firm The Quantum Hub. 'This appears to be a negotiating tactic aimed at unresolved discussion points,' Kumar said. BLOOMBERG
Business Times
4 hours ago
- Business Times
Tesla ordered by Florida jury to pay US$243 million in fatal Autopilot crash
[NEW YORK] A Florida jury on Friday (Aug 1) found Tesla liable to pay US$243 million to victims of a 2019 fatal crash of an Autopilot-equipped Model S, a verdict that could encourage more legal action against Elon Musk's electric vehicle (EV) company. The verdict is a rare win for victims of accidents involving Autopilot. Musk has been pushing to rapidly expand Tesla's recently launched robotaxi business based on an advanced version of its driver assistance software. Tesla shares fell 1.8 per cent on Friday, and are down 25 per cent this year. Jurors in Miami federal court awarded the estate of Naibel Benavides Leon, as well as her former boyfriend Dillon Angulo, US$129 million in compensatory damages plus US$200 million in punitive damages, according to a verdict sheet. Tesla was held liable for 33 per cent of the compensatory damages, or US$42.6 million. Jurors found the driver George McGee liable for 67 per cent, but he was not a defendant and will not have to pay his share. BT in your inbox Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox. Sign Up Sign Up 'Tesla designed Autopilot only for controlled-access highways yet deliberately chose not to restrict drivers from using it elsewhere, alongside Elon Musk telling the world Autopilot drove better than humans,' Brett Schreiber, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, said. 'Today's verdict represents justice for Naibel's tragic death and Dillon's lifelong injuries,' he added. Tesla said it will appeal. 'Today's verdict is wrong and only works to set back automotive safety and jeopardise Tesla's and the entire industry's efforts to develop and implement life-saving technology,' the company said. The plaintiffs had sought US$345 million of damages. Their lawyers said that the trial was the first involving the wrongful death of a third party resulting from Autopilot. Impact on future cases Tesla has faced many similar lawsuits over its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, but they have been resolved or dismissed without getting to trial. In June, a judge rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss the Florida case. Experts said on Friday's verdict may spur more lawsuits, and could make future settlements more costly. 'It's a big deal,' said Alex Lemann, a law professor at Marquette University. 'This is the first time that Tesla has been hit with a judgment in one of the many, many fatalities that have happened as a result of its Autopilot technology.' The verdict could also impede efforts by Musk, the world's richest person, to convince investors that Tesla can become a leader in so-called autonomous driving for private vehicles as well as robotaxis it plans to start producing next year. As Tesla's electric vehicle sales fall, much of its nearly US$1 trillion market value hinges on Musk's ability to pivot the company into robotics and artificial intelligence. Driver's role The trial concerned an Apr 25, 2019, incident where George McGee drove his 2019 Model S at about 100 kph through an intersection into the victims' parked Chevrolet Tahoe as they were standing beside it on a shoulder. McGee had reached down to pick up a cellphone he dropped on his car's floorboard and allegedly received no alerts as he ran a stop sign and stop light before hitting the victims' SUV. Benavides Leon was allegedly thrown 23 metres to her death, while Angulo suffered serious injuries. 'We have a driver who was acting less than perfectly, and yet the jury still found Tesla contributed to the crash,' said Philip Koopman, a Carnegie Mellon University engineering professor and expert in autonomous technology. 'The only way the jury could have possibly ruled against Tesla was by finding a defect with the Autopilot software,' he added. 'That's a big deal.' Tesla, in its statement, said McGee was entirely at fault. 'To be clear, no car in 2019, and none today, would have prevented this crash,' the company said. 'This was never about Autopilot; it was a fiction concocted by plaintiffs' lawyers blaming the car when the driver, from day one, admitted and accepted responsibility.' REUTERS