4 ms·

It's not particular to the car industry, you can see it everywhere, from 3M making every American and possibly every living thing more propense to cancer [0] to

by xlayn 11y ago

It's not particular to the car industry, you can see it everywhere, from 3M making every American and possibly every living thing more propense to cancer [0] to Unilever dropping tons of mercury on the forests of India[1] to IBM taking every position they can to India because it's cheaper[2]. The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it. Edit: there is nothing wrong with moving positions to a another country. [0]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502041.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01... [0]http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/link-dupont-teflon-cancer-26060/ http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/link-dupont-teflon-cancer-26060... [0]http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/Factsheets/A_DUPONT_LEGACY_PFOA_Pollution.pdf http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/Factsheets/A_DU... [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodaikanal_mercury_poisoning [2]http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123799610031239341 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123799610031239341

jowiar 11y ago
This isn't going to get fixed as long as the individuals at the top still become multimillionaires/billionaires even if the companies in question go kaput. The penalties for doing this need to be: (1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and (2) Prison
- fweespeech 11y ago
  That isn't the answer. Many of the people who you'd target don't have the kind of control needed to actually "fix" it. Its generally a cultural problem with the company and the company is the target that should be destroyed in the extreme case where (2) would be appropriate [which nukes the wealth of the shareholders].
  - jowiar 11y ago
    But the cultural problem comes from somewhere. And if we're going to reward those who "succeed" with unimaginable riches, the penalties for failing at that scale need to be equally harsh. Alternatively, we realize this, and thus implement a tax structure such that we have no more billionaires.
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      Billionaires are largely investors/shareholders. Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions. Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
  - hobs 11y ago
    So who has control? Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
    - fweespeech 11y ago
      > So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? No CEO has 100% control of their company. > Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that. > How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse. Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests. > I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently. Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth. Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.
josu 11y ago
>The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it. The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. Just take a look at poultry farms, they are living hells, but people don't seem to mind it as long as they can buy 6 chicken nuggets for 99 cents. We can't have the cake and eat it too, we have to decide whether we want companies to be responsible or if we want to pay less for the products and services we consume.
- r00fus 11y ago
  > The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. I'd have no problem with actually competing price vs. quality but the problem is with legislative/judicial challenges to things like environmental laws and consumer protection. We simply don't punish enough those who willingly shit on the commons to make a buck (and consumers are often in the dark about the quality of their goods), and so those who have large investments in these vehicles use some that money to influence/corrupt the regulatory and legislative bodies to prevent their cash flow from being stopped. Just wait till TPP is signed and ratified...
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
TeMPOraL 11y ago
Generally, http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Corporations today don't just worship Moloch, they're goddamn priests of it.
erickhill 11y ago
Has the Teflon ban indeed gone into effect? That WP story is dated 2006. I can't seem to find anything recent that confirms this is indeed the case.

by xlayn 11y ago

jowiar 11y ago

This isn't going to get fixed as long as the individuals at the top still become multimillionaires/billionaires even if the companies in question go kaput. The penalties for doing this need to be: (1) Confiscation of individual wealth, and (2) Prison

fweespeech 11y ago
That isn't the answer. Many of the people who you'd target don't have the kind of control needed to actually "fix" it. Its generally a cultural problem with the company and the company is the target that should be destroyed in the extreme case where (2) would be appropriate [which nukes the wealth of the shareholders].
- jowiar 11y ago
  But the cultural problem comes from somewhere. And if we're going to reward those who "succeed" with unimaginable riches, the penalties for failing at that scale need to be equally harsh. Alternatively, we realize this, and thus implement a tax structure such that we have no more billionaires.
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    Billionaires are largely investors/shareholders. Targeting the shareholders in civil suits will encourage better/more defensive CEO choices and other board decisions. Direction stems from the top and the top is the Board [elected by shareholders] and not the CEO. Pretending otherwise is simply ignorance.
- hobs 11y ago
  So who has control? Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. I definitely think that they should be tied more closely together if we want something like market forces to help resolve the problems at hand instead of paying people to effect NO change (or effectively random change).
  - fweespeech 11y ago
    > So who has control? The shareholders who appoint the board who appoints the CEO. > Why are we(the shareholders) paying the top CEOs if they cant control their company? No CEO has 100% control of their company. > Why should they be rewarded for hurting us? You should have picked better. Like any employer, you are responsible for the ultimate cost of the actions of your employees. The title doesn't magically change that. > How do cultures get established and reinforced if not through management's expectations and actions? You should have the Board fire the CEO if you believe the CEO is the problem. It isn't like shareholders have no recourse. Ultimately, the Board/shareholders are the CEO's boss. The buck stops there as far as who is responsible for employing everyone at the company [including the CEO]. Simply because you want a scapegoat doesn't change where the power rests. > I think all of these questions point to the fact that we are letting those reaping the benefits abrogate the responsibilities. Yes, shareholders push for profits before other factors and have abrogated their civil responsibility by not picking differently. Instead, shareholders pick people that they think will maximize their personal wealth. Similarly, the C-suite is heavily compensated in stock and destruction and/or value loss of said stock impacts their personal financial decision directly. If you truly are concerned, you can always "lock" stock compensation for N years to keep the CEO from selling it so short sighted decisions will bite them on the ass even after they left their post.

josu 11y ago

>The reason is: if this reflects on "making more money" they will do it and fight to make it look right until they are challenge on court, as a result probably the fines will be lower than the earnings related to how they did it. The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. Just take a look at poultry farms, they are living hells, but people don't seem to mind it as long as they can buy 6 chicken nuggets for 99 cents. We can't have the cake and eat it too, we have to decide whether we want companies to be responsible or if we want to pay less for the products and services we consume.

r00fus 11y ago
> The reason behind this reason is that as long as consumers keep demanding cheaper products, companies will continue looking for ways to lower their costs. I'd have no problem with actually competing price vs. quality but the problem is with legislative/judicial challenges to things like environmental laws and consumer protection. We simply don't punish enough those who willingly shit on the commons to make a buck (and consumers are often in the dark about the quality of their goods), and so those who have large investments in these vehicles use some that money to influence/corrupt the regulatory and legislative bodies to prevent their cash flow from being stopped. Just wait till TPP is signed and ratified...

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

TeMPOraL 11y ago

Generally, http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/. Corporations today don't just worship Moloch, they're goddamn priests of it.

erickhill 11y ago

Has the Teflon ban indeed gone into effect? That WP story is dated 2006. I can't seem to find anything recent that confirms this is indeed the case.