6 ms·

This is what gets me though and it's so confusing. If I were a stockholder of a big megacorp and they weren't spending their money on looking climate change sol

This is what gets me though and it's so confusing. If I were a stockholder of a big megacorp and they weren't spending their money on looking climate change solutions - especially the corps causing the most damage (due to future lawsuit concerns I would expect these companies to be most on board; if they don't get on board then the future will consider them mass-murders and their money-making opportunities will shrink further than I outline in this post) - then I would be leading the charge to sue for poor use of money. The companies are leaving trillions on the table right now by not spending their money wisely. The future economy is going to be based around climate change cleanup at the rate we're going right now and most companies are trying to lose customers by accelerating global climate change to make their customers pay more money to relocate, fix environmental issues, instead of buying their products. Our society is going to be so financially strained in the future and it is a Direct result of the megacorps not spending their money in sustainable, responsible ways. They should all be facing constant lawsuits from their stockholders for not doing better to protect the environment. Since their high-payed lawyers are presumably the ones that lobbied congress in the first place to make sure environmental care was not going to be part of taxes, and in fact that they should pay nearly no taxes at all, suggests to me that they think that the public good is best taken care of by corporations. It seems the only logical conclusion of this line of thinking: if the corps don't want to pay big taxes because they think it is a waste of money, then they have to be in charge of clean air for us, bu they don't actually care about that and so we're all going to suffer and pay less for their products because we have to pay more to fix the air. I just don't get it. Edit: For example, how many people in North Carolina will be buying new consumer electronics this Christmas? Will it be fewer than normal, because they have to spend a lot of their own money cleaning up from a storm that was exasperating via climate change and had to deal with a government that made planning for climate change illegal? I think so. I think fewer people there will buy iPhones this winter and fewer people there will buy TVs are even new fancy cars too. But really why are these corporations losing these sales already? It's because an area hit by a climate-change-fueled storm was unprepared by not taxing companies correctly and by the corporations themselves trying not to be taxed; so we end up with the population themselves trying to fix the errors of their government and this process takes expected money out of the corporation's hands. But the storms will come, and come, and come, and there will be fewer opportunities to make money from people affected by climate change. I. just. don't. get. it.

abduhl 8y ago
What would these companies be getting sued for exactly in your mind? Do you own any stocks? Even holding a broad exchange fund makes you a stockholder. Have you led the charge in any lawsuits or is this just lip service outrage?
- jacobsheehy 8y ago
  > What would these companies be getting sued for exactly in your mind? I was responding to a comment, sorry if this message got lost. Companies who do not spend their money according to stockholder wishes get sued, correct? For misuse of funds? My post was attempting to explain that I consider it a gross misuse of corporate funds to not spend excess cash-on-hand on projects to reduce the effects of climate change on humanity. To me, it is clear that a corporation wishing to maximize profit must address climate change or risk being sued for misuse of their funds. > Do you own any stocks? Even holding a broad exchange fund makes you a stockholder. No I do not own any stocks. > Have you led the charge in any lawsuits or is this just lip service outrage? There's no need to be rude. I stand by my words. I have no resources or funds or stocks to give me the standing to approach this topic with a corporation or lawyers. I just get by every month. There's no need to insult my opinions and call my description and opinions 'lip service'. I'm being serious, no need to belittle me.
  - hannasanarion 8y ago
    > Companies who do not spend their money according to stockholder wishes get sued, correct? For misuse of funds? No, they get sued for malfeasance: taking investments and failing to return a profit. It doesn't matter what stockholders want, the purpose of buying stocks is to make a return, and if a company fails to prioritize profit above all else, then they have broken the implicit or explicit contract with their shareholders: investment now in return for dividends later.
CptFribble 8y ago
I think you underestimate the power of "not my problem" thinking. I agree future historians will judge our governments and our megacorps, the current keepers of humanity's resources, very harshly. However, many of those at the ships' helms are insulated from their own externalities, the consequences of their decisions. And most of the shares are held by others who are similarly insulated, or abstracted away through 401ks and mutual funds. The core of the problem is that our entire system of resource allocation is based on who can make the most money with them and construct the tallest walls around them, not who uses them to better the most lives. For every million lives destroyed by climate change, there is a million more that doesn't care about anything beyond their family, their friends, and their iPhone. A warming planet will make much of Siberia arable, for example. I think the answer to your questions begins with another question: what would make a CEO not use lobbying to resist taxing externalities of his company? What about a board of directors? A shareholder? An "average voter?" When we can answer those questions, we can begin to make progress.

abduhl 8y ago

What would these companies be getting sued for exactly in your mind? Do you own any stocks? Even holding a broad exchange fund makes you a stockholder. Have you led the charge in any lawsuits or is this just lip service outrage?

jacobsheehy 8y ago
> What would these companies be getting sued for exactly in your mind? I was responding to a comment, sorry if this message got lost. Companies who do not spend their money according to stockholder wishes get sued, correct? For misuse of funds? My post was attempting to explain that I consider it a gross misuse of corporate funds to not spend excess cash-on-hand on projects to reduce the effects of climate change on humanity. To me, it is clear that a corporation wishing to maximize profit must address climate change or risk being sued for misuse of their funds. > Do you own any stocks? Even holding a broad exchange fund makes you a stockholder. No I do not own any stocks. > Have you led the charge in any lawsuits or is this just lip service outrage? There's no need to be rude. I stand by my words. I have no resources or funds or stocks to give me the standing to approach this topic with a corporation or lawyers. I just get by every month. There's no need to insult my opinions and call my description and opinions 'lip service'. I'm being serious, no need to belittle me.
- hannasanarion 8y ago
  > Companies who do not spend their money according to stockholder wishes get sued, correct? For misuse of funds? No, they get sued for malfeasance: taking investments and failing to return a profit. It doesn't matter what stockholders want, the purpose of buying stocks is to make a return, and if a company fails to prioritize profit above all else, then they have broken the implicit or explicit contract with their shareholders: investment now in return for dividends later.

CptFribble 8y ago

I think you underestimate the power of "not my problem" thinking. I agree future historians will judge our governments and our megacorps, the current keepers of humanity's resources, very harshly. However, many of those at the ships' helms are insulated from their own externalities, the consequences of their decisions. And most of the shares are held by others who are similarly insulated, or abstracted away through 401ks and mutual funds. The core of the problem is that our entire system of resource allocation is based on who can make the most money with them and construct the tallest walls around them, not who uses them to better the most lives. For every million lives destroyed by climate change, there is a million more that doesn't care about anything beyond their family, their friends, and their iPhone. A warming planet will make much of Siberia arable, for example. I think the answer to your questions begins with another question: what would make a CEO not use lobbying to resist taxing externalities of his company? What about a board of directors? A shareholder? An "average voter?" When we can answer those questions, we can begin to make progress.