3 ms·

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

by 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.

by shkkmo 8y ago

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.