5 ms·

I ignore your first paragraph since it sounds hostile. As for the rest, obviously, free market has a self-correcting mechanism. Corporations need consumers so

I ignore your first paragraph since it sounds hostile. As for the rest, obviously, free market has a self-correcting mechanism. Corporations need consumers so they cannot simply "run afoul of basic human rights" as you said or they get a pushback from the populace. But at the same time, western companies send their manufacturing to Asia due to lower costs despite the lax labor and environmental regulations in those countries. I'm not sure what is controversial about what I said.

Rooster61 7y ago
I didn't say it was controversial, I think your statement that companies not having any chance of surviving due to stepping on human rights issues is flatly and verifiably wrong. That's evidenced by my second point that the vast majority of the most powerful corporations on Earth can and do infringe on said rights, and have done so for quite some time. > But at the same time, western companies send their manufacturing to Asia due to lower costs despite the lax labor and environmental regulations in those countries. Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included. I'm a staunch capitalist, but I also recognize that the market will only correct when the offense makes people uncomfortable enough to take action and stop partaking in a given product or service. And again, not hostile to you. Only hostile to your argument. I'd be happy if you had an argument that could change my mind, as my own view is quite cynical, and not something I find comfort in in the least.
- namirez 7y ago
  I think it's been a misunderstanding, because I agree with what you just said.
  - Rooster61 7y ago
    > A company that prioritizes human rights at the expense of profit, is a company that has no chance of survival in our political or economic environment > Corporations need consumers so they cannot simply "run afoul of basic human rights" >>Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included. The bottom statement is incompatible with the first two. You state that companies will not survive if they do such things. You back that up saying that consumers are them mechanism that keeps them from surviving. My statement directly refutes that. Also, if you don't mind, could you make a record of what was edited in the original post? Ninja edits aren't usually looked on well here on HN.

Rooster61 7y ago

I didn't say it was controversial, I think your statement that companies not having any chance of surviving due to stepping on human rights issues is flatly and verifiably wrong. That's evidenced by my second point that the vast majority of the most powerful corporations on Earth can and do infringe on said rights, and have done so for quite some time. > But at the same time, western companies send their manufacturing to Asia due to lower costs despite the lax labor and environmental regulations in those countries. Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included. I'm a staunch capitalist, but I also recognize that the market will only correct when the offense makes people uncomfortable enough to take action and stop partaking in a given product or service. And again, not hostile to you. Only hostile to your argument. I'd be happy if you had an argument that could change my mind, as my own view is quite cynical, and not something I find comfort in in the least.

namirez 7y ago
I think it's been a misunderstanding, because I agree with what you just said.
- Rooster61 7y ago
  > A company that prioritizes human rights at the expense of profit, is a company that has no chance of survival in our political or economic environment > Corporations need consumers so they cannot simply "run afoul of basic human rights" >>Consumers have proven that they are willing to let such things slide to maintain their own convenience time and time again, your example included. The bottom statement is incompatible with the first two. You state that companies will not survive if they do such things. You back that up saying that consumers are them mechanism that keeps them from surviving. My statement directly refutes that. Also, if you don't mind, could you make a record of what was edited in the original post? Ninja edits aren't usually looked on well here on HN.