3 ms·

If there's no regulation standing in their way, or the potential profits outweigh the consequences, of course they'll continue their malfeasance Well, yes, but

If there's no regulation standing in their way, or the potential profits outweigh the consequences, of course they'll continue their malfeasance Well, yes, but that’s really “if voters and customers are happy” isn’t it? No corporations exist in a vacuum. It’s like Nike making shoes in sweatshops, people moan but buy them anyway. Voters could sort it easily by imposing punitive tariffs on any country that doesn’t comply with US labor and environmental laws.

Vinnl 7y ago
But if the EU would try to do that, the US would likely retaliate with tariffs.
dual_basis 7y ago
The Nike sweatshop situation is actually a counterexample to your point. People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well.
- the_pwner224 7y ago
  Doesn't seem like it. > People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well. They realized their sales would drop unless they started spending more on manufacturing costs - which would decrease profit. Solution? Make all your competitors spend more too. That way we all make less profit, instead of me making less and everyone else taking over the market with their higher margins.
  - dual_basis 7y ago
    I mean, that does seem like the optimal outcome, doesn't it? Not only is Nike not using sweatshop labor, but all their competitors are also not using sweatshop labor. Did you want Nike to stop just because they felt bad, but their competitors could continue to use sweatshop labor? As you point out, that would mean that they would be pushed out of the market and we'd just have a new major corporation using sweatshop labor to be mad at.
    - the_pwner224 7y ago
      It is a pretty good outcome. Your comment made it seem like Nike pushed other manufacturers to get better labor practices out of a desire to do good (perhaps I am reading it wrong), whereas I think what happened was that a purely-profit-driven corporation acting in its best interest ended up doing something good.

Vinnl 7y ago

But if the EU would try to do that, the US would likely retaliate with tariffs.

dual_basis 7y ago

The Nike sweatshop situation is actually a counterexample to your point. People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well.

the_pwner224 7y ago
Doesn't seem like it. > People complained and, at least according to what I read, not only did Nike change but they lobbied for legislation to force their competitors to change as well. They realized their sales would drop unless they started spending more on manufacturing costs - which would decrease profit. Solution? Make all your competitors spend more too. That way we all make less profit, instead of me making less and everyone else taking over the market with their higher margins.
- dual_basis 7y ago
  I mean, that does seem like the optimal outcome, doesn't it? Not only is Nike not using sweatshop labor, but all their competitors are also not using sweatshop labor. Did you want Nike to stop just because they felt bad, but their competitors could continue to use sweatshop labor? As you point out, that would mean that they would be pushed out of the market and we'd just have a new major corporation using sweatshop labor to be mad at.
  - the_pwner224 7y ago
    It is a pretty good outcome. Your comment made it seem like Nike pushed other manufacturers to get better labor practices out of a desire to do good (perhaps I am reading it wrong), whereas I think what happened was that a purely-profit-driven corporation acting in its best interest ended up doing something good.