WhiteWingedDove- t1_j0o55or wrote on December 18, 2022 at 3:41 AM

Reply to comment by SoItWasYouAllAlong in 15 Years of almost daily use and still going strong , I present to you the Toyota of Backpacks by TheRealHowardPotts

Maybe there is something to what you're saying from a psychological standpoint but microeconomics teaches us that firms are in business to make a profit and that is the overriding principle that guides every decision from the smallest, seemingly insignificant decision to major ones. In reality, every decision is a decision where the "bottom line is at stake."

So, ultimately, according the microecon, the decision was made to pursue copyright claims against mom and pops because the firm thought it would boost profits. Probably because they thought they could get some kind of monetary settlement, or more likely (in my opinion), because they thought any press it would bring would be good for sales.

And that thought doesn't necessarily have to be true for us to say the profit motive is behind it. Tons of business decisions are made because stakeholders *thought* they would boost profits, but actually ended up losing money.

SoItWasYouAllAlong t1_j0pj260 wrote on December 18, 2022 at 1:30 PM

That would be an attempt of using the map to reason against the realities of the terrain.

I'm not an economist, but here's my attempt at describing it in my own words: Microeconomics has an extremely simplified model, which works reasonably well for the purposes it is designed for: Individuals' market behavior, parameterized by few key quantities of the market environment. The dynamics of the collective market environment (simplified to a few key quantities), as a result of individuals' market behavior. But that's all. It says nothing about e.g. whether, when times are good, the owner of a small private business will size bonuses based on the bare minimum which maximizes expected future return, or be generous for emotional reasons.

> In reality, every decision is a decision where the "bottom line is at stake."

That goes directly against my personal experience of businesses' (of various sizes) day-to-day operations. Also, microeconomics assumes "rational actors", not omniscient or internally efficient. It doesn't model the internal dynamics of a business, just its behavior on its external "market" interface, based on available information. E.g, in the same circumstances, on the inside some try to formalize a perfect methodology and avoid disruptions. Others try to build agility and foster disruptive patterns. That aspect of a business is outside the scope of microeconomics.