4 ms·
Let's not forget, that the buyers of the minerals had total choice where to get their supplies from. They could have purchased from American or other mines, but
by ljf 7y ago
Let's not forget, that the buyers of the minerals had total choice where to get their supplies from. They could have purchased from American or other mines, but chose to go with the cheapest - knowing both that doing this would bankrupt safer mines, and leave environmental waste in China.
The Chinese mines are not blameless, but they are only part of the 'profit at all costs' mindset that many shareholders demand.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoThey didn’t really have a choice though. Oh sure, those companies could pay twice as much as their competitors, but they would simply go out of business and not exist anymore. So if they existed before, they can’t exist now. It’s all predicted by the free market: the mines that had higher costs because they followed environmental regulations can’t compete with those that don’t, likewise companies that purchase from more expensive sources can’t compete with those that purchase from cheaper ones, since ultimately consumers are going to choose the cheaper product. Hence the need for regulation and perhaps even trade restrictions to force the right choices to be made.
- bluGill 7y agoNo it is not predicted. The free market does not require you to use the cheapest supplier, it requires you to use the best for your situation. Sometimes it is worth paying for quality. If using the cheapest supplier causes your customers who care about the environment to boycott you, then using that cheap supplier isn't a good decision. So the failure comes back to people not actually caring about the environment in China.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoIf the rare earths produced from the Chinese mines and refiners were of lesser quality, then you would have a point. If the refining process requires them to poop in their own backyard, then you might not even be aware of that until many years later, let alone have a free market interest in preventing them from doing that. > So the failure comes back to people not actually caring about the environment in China. Some people, many people in China do care about the environment, they just have lacked the power to do much about it. But yes, again, short term interests win out when the long term consequences are far away in space or time. And then it’s just a classic prisoners dilemma: you can think long term, but your competitors will just put you out of business short term so it isn’t a workable solution.
- bluGill 7y agoMy company is very careful that our suppliers don't use slave labor. We have mapped out supply chain down 6 levels in some cases to ensure this. Slave labor is cheaper, but we won't use it even indirectly.
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoAnd so what? Slave labor has long been known to be not profitable, it is easy agency useful to avoid. Also, your consumers will reward you for that.
- bluGill 7y agoThe last point: do consumers reward me for not picking the cheapest?
- seanmcdirmid 7y agoNot really. They reward you for not getting caught using slave labor.
- bluGill 7y agoRewards for not getting caught for cheating is a fundamental problem that no system can solve. There are systems that get closer than others. We tend to use words like fascist to describe them for good reason: the downsides are often worse than the problems. This isn't to say we shouldn't work on the problem, we just need to be careful that our ends are not worse.