3 ms·

This is one of the biggest issues with unfettered free market capitalism in that long-term issues are incredibly hard to balance out and relatively easy to cove

This is one of the biggest issues with unfettered free market capitalism in that long-term issues are incredibly hard to balance out and relatively easy to cover up. By the time people figure out what it is that might be killing them there's little recourse or the damage is already done. Eventually the free market might kick in and result in companies like J&J being torn apart. Yet are we really willing to repeat the cycle of a shitty company hiding things that are harmful to the public under the guise of a free market? A free market can only theoretically work when consumers have full access to information that allows them to make rational decisions about what they chose to buy; companies hiding information like that very obviously goes against that core concept.

shkkmo 8y ago
In what way is that the result of free market capitalism in particular? It sounds to me like a basic problem with freedom of action and human nature in a world of imperfect information. It is hard to regulate deleterious behavior when it only has long term bad effects, especially when those effects are indirect and statistical. This is not to excuse any immorality or lack of ethics on the part of J&J executives. My point is just that preventing these types of abuses is a hard problem to solve regardless of economic system.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  It's a harder problem to solve because free market capitalism incentivizes lying to the consumer and hiding facts, especially for things that occur over the extremely long term. Short-term profits are far more valued than maintaining public health or ensuring that their actions don't have any negative consequences in the future. Even if a company lasts to see said consequences, the people in charge at the time end up getting away richer. It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    Well, the alternative to CEOs making these decisions that they are made by politicians and bureaucrats. They are equally capable lying to people and hiding facts out of self interest. I think we could all name a few. There is no magical alternative economic system that gives people ethics and takes away self interest. What you need are strong institutions that provide checks on corruption and malfeasance. Institution such as investigative reporting, good regulations, and independent agencies enforcing those regulations. You need these regardless of if the means of production are publicly or privately owned, regardless of if your prices are set by the free market or by bureaucrats (or by software someday). > It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits. Sure, but allowing consumer choice in a free market allows checks on corporate malfeasance that are hard to replicate with regulations. Free markets and regulations can work together better than either on their own. (Or they can work against each other when poorly implemented) There are certainly problems with how our free market is structured to incentivize short terms profits for share holders over the longer term health of the company. We could do a much better job with regulatory capture and giving executives of major corporations actual jail sentences.
briandear 8y ago
How is this “unfettered?” FDA does quite a bit of “fettering.” That the regulation failed isn’t a failure of free markets, if anything, it’s a failure of regulation. If you are going to regulate and the regulations didn’t work, yet the companies complied with said regulation, do you blame the company or the government? Plenty of nasty products from the Soviet planned economy only there, you wouldn’t have the benefit of competitors or alternatives for the public — assuming you could even good goods at all. People that complain about capitalism have never lived under the alternative.
- fzeroracer 8y ago
  This is the very definition of whataboutism. And the clear answer is to blame both. Especially when the line between corporation and government is blurred due to lobbying and vested interests.
  - ghufran_syed 8y ago
    You seem to be conflating "whataboutism" with "responding in a way I don't like". Feel free to share your definition and show how the parent statement meets the definition
- armitron 8y ago
  Regulation can not work if there is regulatory capture which in practice means that there are no penalties. As long as corporations have no skin in the game and only abide by short-term greed, it's in their best interest to keep finding loopholes and screwing everybody over. How many times has Goldman Sachs been "penalized" for bypassing regulations? Plenty. Have those penalties amounted to anything? Do you see their behavior changing when they practically own the US government?

shkkmo 8y ago

In what way is that the result of free market capitalism in particular? It sounds to me like a basic problem with freedom of action and human nature in a world of imperfect information. It is hard to regulate deleterious behavior when it only has long term bad effects, especially when those effects are indirect and statistical. This is not to excuse any immorality or lack of ethics on the part of J&J executives. My point is just that preventing these types of abuses is a hard problem to solve regardless of economic system.

fzeroracer 8y ago
It's a harder problem to solve because free market capitalism incentivizes lying to the consumer and hiding facts, especially for things that occur over the extremely long term. Short-term profits are far more valued than maintaining public health or ensuring that their actions don't have any negative consequences in the future. Even if a company lasts to see said consequences, the people in charge at the time end up getting away richer. It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- shkkmo 8y ago
  Well, the alternative to CEOs making these decisions that they are made by politicians and bureaucrats. They are equally capable lying to people and hiding facts out of self interest. I think we could all name a few. There is no magical alternative economic system that gives people ethics and takes away self interest. What you need are strong institutions that provide checks on corruption and malfeasance. Institution such as investigative reporting, good regulations, and independent agencies enforcing those regulations. You need these regardless of if the means of production are publicly or privately owned, regardless of if your prices are set by the free market or by bureaucrats (or by software someday). > It's easier to regulate behavior when you don't reward executives and businesses who use immoral behavior to increase profits. Sure, but allowing consumer choice in a free market allows checks on corporate malfeasance that are hard to replicate with regulations. Free markets and regulations can work together better than either on their own. (Or they can work against each other when poorly implemented) There are certainly problems with how our free market is structured to incentivize short terms profits for share holders over the longer term health of the company. We could do a much better job with regulatory capture and giving executives of major corporations actual jail sentences.

briandear 8y ago

How is this “unfettered?” FDA does quite a bit of “fettering.” That the regulation failed isn’t a failure of free markets, if anything, it’s a failure of regulation. If you are going to regulate and the regulations didn’t work, yet the companies complied with said regulation, do you blame the company or the government? Plenty of nasty products from the Soviet planned economy only there, you wouldn’t have the benefit of competitors or alternatives for the public — assuming you could even good goods at all. People that complain about capitalism have never lived under the alternative.

fzeroracer 8y ago
This is the very definition of whataboutism. And the clear answer is to blame both. Especially when the line between corporation and government is blurred due to lobbying and vested interests.
- ghufran_syed 8y ago
  You seem to be conflating "whataboutism" with "responding in a way I don't like". Feel free to share your definition and show how the parent statement meets the definition
armitron 8y ago
Regulation can not work if there is regulatory capture which in practice means that there are no penalties. As long as corporations have no skin in the game and only abide by short-term greed, it's in their best interest to keep finding loopholes and screwing everybody over. How many times has Goldman Sachs been "penalized" for bypassing regulations? Plenty. Have those penalties amounted to anything? Do you see their behavior changing when they practically own the US government?