4 ms·

I think moralizing about companies is stupid. If a company makes moral decisions, and as such, is less sucessful, they're probably going to get their lunch eate

I think moralizing about companies is stupid. If a company makes moral decisions, and as such, is less sucessful, they're probably going to get their lunch eaten by their less moral competition. The only antidote to this is laws that ensure some basic level of civility. Capitalism is a nasty, amoral system by nature. Saying some companies are good and others are bad is just scapegoating. If everybody boycotts amazon tomorrow, they'll be replaced by a company that does the same stuff - because amazon have proved that it works, and that it is profitable. Nothing but legistlation can stop that. Talking about how bad amazon is obcures this.

HarryHirsch 7y ago
Capitalism is a nasty, amoral system by nature. Saying some companies are good and others are bad is just scapegoating. Actually, this isn't the case. Not too long ago, orphan drugs were actually reasonably priced. Cuprimine went up from 500 USD to 24000 USD for a 30-day supply when Valeant bought the original manufacturer, and Daraprim went up from 13.50 USD/dose to 750 USD/dose thanks to Shkreli: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-senate-drug-price-study-20161221-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-senate-drug-price-stu... Something changed, but I'm not sure what.
- refurb 7y ago
  Those drugs are going up in price so they reflect the prices of new orphan drug launches. And they can do it since competition won’t bother to jump through FDA hoops.
  - HarryHirsch 7y ago
    jump through FDA hoops Not that again. Bioequivalence is important so that a patient can take Levothyroxin 75 μg from Ranbaxy one month and Levothyroxin 75 μg from Teva next month and notice no difference. Unfortunately, the market for orphan drugs is so small that it's impossible to recover the outlays.
    - refurb 7y ago
      Just as an aside, once you start on a thyroid medication, it’s recommended you stick with that manufacturer. Yes, they are bioequivalent, but to the FDA that means 80%-125% of the originator. But yes, these markets where formally cheap drugs get 100x price increases are tiny markets where the outlay to get FDA approval is more than they’d make on it.
totalZero 7y ago
The ideology you are pushing will self-reinforce. If everyone rewards companies for being nasty because that's somehow "smart" or "successful", then the nasty companies will be among the most successful ones. If everyone boycotts companies that do unethical things, then those companies will be punished financially and ethical behavior will be economically incentivized. Choose the world in which you want to live.
- pasabagi 7y ago
  The vast majority of customers buy products first on quality, second on price, then third on ethics. The third point is very tenuous, since it relies on specific, reliable information that the producer is highly incentivized to obfuscate. I don't see how that could ever work. So, in my eyes, it's not choosing the world you want to live. It's engaging in some magical thinking to feel good about yourself. If you want to change the world, vote. Better still, organize. Take the time you would have spent researching the ethical status of one company or another and look into the history of campaigns to improve working conditions. Some campaigns have worked - but I have never heard of, and cannot imagine there are any, that were consumer boycotts.
  - totalZero 7y ago
    1. You're making up vague statistics that I believe are false. If "the vast majority of customers" only "tenuous"-ly care about ethics, then why are major multinational corporations reacting to today's ethical concerns like climate change? Doesn't stand up to your own logic that companies do amoral things. 2. If you reward companies for being bad, then they will be bad. If you reward companies for selling blue items, they will sell more blue items. Your own logic about amorality dictates this. Why is it so hard to understand?
    - pasabagi 7y ago
      I guess I thought my 'vague statistics' were obvious and undeniable. If not, let's get concrete. Consider Union Carbide. They were responsible for the worst industrial disaster in history, with around 20,000 dead. They then went on to neither compensate the victims (including 40,000 permanent disabled) nor clean up the site. This was widely publicized. According to your theory, such an extreme 'bad' act would have led to disaster for the company. In reality, it didn't even lead to rebranding. They were bought by Dow Chemicals - but that was because they had massive debts. I think they cannot have been related to the Bhopal disaster, since their compensation paid was very small. One salient fact here is that moral hazard is not contagious. Many products are for other businesses, who aren't likely to pay a premium for ethical considerations. Another fact here is that even in the most famous and awful cases of bad companies, you're relying on the company's own branding to tell informed customers to stay away. Which is obviously extremely fragile - the company can rebrand, even if the customers are reliably informed (how many people on the street know about Bhopal? Is it present when they buy shrink wrap? Is it even possible to know that your shrink wrap was made using ethylene from union carbide? All seems a bit absurd to me. Even before you get into the inherent asymetries of the idea (is Bill Gate's ethical opinion worth more than a billion poor people? As an ethical consumer, it is.)
luckylion 7y ago
> The only antidote to this is laws that ensure some basic level of civility. How do you figure those laws are created, if not by public pressure? And how would publish pressure be created if not by talking about the amoral behavior of companies?
- pasabagi 7y ago
  In general, but not in specific. Saying that a specific practice should be illegal is productive. Saying that a particular company is bad is not - they'll simply say, 'we follow the law'. And they'll be right. Then the politicians will say, 'you can't ban Amazon'. And they'll also be right, because laws can't be targeted against specific groups. If you target specific techniques and practices (for instance, child labour, historically) then the supporters and lobbyists have to actually justify the problematic stuff - they can't just hide behind the nebulous vagueness of all the things big companies do.

HarryHirsch 7y ago

Capitalism is a nasty, amoral system by nature. Saying some companies are good and others are bad is just scapegoating. Actually, this isn't the case. Not too long ago, orphan drugs were actually reasonably priced. Cuprimine went up from 500 USD to 24000 USD for a 30-day supply when Valeant bought the original manufacturer, and Daraprim went up from 13.50 USD/dose to 750 USD/dose thanks to Shkreli: https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-senate-drug-price-study-20161221-story.html https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-senate-drug-price-stu... Something changed, but I'm not sure what.

refurb 7y ago
Those drugs are going up in price so they reflect the prices of new orphan drug launches. And they can do it since competition won’t bother to jump through FDA hoops.
- HarryHirsch 7y ago
  jump through FDA hoops Not that again. Bioequivalence is important so that a patient can take Levothyroxin 75 μg from Ranbaxy one month and Levothyroxin 75 μg from Teva next month and notice no difference. Unfortunately, the market for orphan drugs is so small that it's impossible to recover the outlays.
  - refurb 7y ago
    Just as an aside, once you start on a thyroid medication, it’s recommended you stick with that manufacturer. Yes, they are bioequivalent, but to the FDA that means 80%-125% of the originator. But yes, these markets where formally cheap drugs get 100x price increases are tiny markets where the outlay to get FDA approval is more than they’d make on it.

totalZero 7y ago

The ideology you are pushing will self-reinforce. If everyone rewards companies for being nasty because that's somehow "smart" or "successful", then the nasty companies will be among the most successful ones. If everyone boycotts companies that do unethical things, then those companies will be punished financially and ethical behavior will be economically incentivized. Choose the world in which you want to live.

pasabagi 7y ago
The vast majority of customers buy products first on quality, second on price, then third on ethics. The third point is very tenuous, since it relies on specific, reliable information that the producer is highly incentivized to obfuscate. I don't see how that could ever work. So, in my eyes, it's not choosing the world you want to live. It's engaging in some magical thinking to feel good about yourself. If you want to change the world, vote. Better still, organize. Take the time you would have spent researching the ethical status of one company or another and look into the history of campaigns to improve working conditions. Some campaigns have worked - but I have never heard of, and cannot imagine there are any, that were consumer boycotts.
- totalZero 7y ago
  1. You're making up vague statistics that I believe are false. If "the vast majority of customers" only "tenuous"-ly care about ethics, then why are major multinational corporations reacting to today's ethical concerns like climate change? Doesn't stand up to your own logic that companies do amoral things. 2. If you reward companies for being bad, then they will be bad. If you reward companies for selling blue items, they will sell more blue items. Your own logic about amorality dictates this. Why is it so hard to understand?
  - pasabagi 7y ago
    I guess I thought my 'vague statistics' were obvious and undeniable. If not, let's get concrete. Consider Union Carbide. They were responsible for the worst industrial disaster in history, with around 20,000 dead. They then went on to neither compensate the victims (including 40,000 permanent disabled) nor clean up the site. This was widely publicized. According to your theory, such an extreme 'bad' act would have led to disaster for the company. In reality, it didn't even lead to rebranding. They were bought by Dow Chemicals - but that was because they had massive debts. I think they cannot have been related to the Bhopal disaster, since their compensation paid was very small. One salient fact here is that moral hazard is not contagious. Many products are for other businesses, who aren't likely to pay a premium for ethical considerations. Another fact here is that even in the most famous and awful cases of bad companies, you're relying on the company's own branding to tell informed customers to stay away. Which is obviously extremely fragile - the company can rebrand, even if the customers are reliably informed (how many people on the street know about Bhopal? Is it present when they buy shrink wrap? Is it even possible to know that your shrink wrap was made using ethylene from union carbide? All seems a bit absurd to me. Even before you get into the inherent asymetries of the idea (is Bill Gate's ethical opinion worth more than a billion poor people? As an ethical consumer, it is.)

luckylion 7y ago

> The only antidote to this is laws that ensure some basic level of civility. How do you figure those laws are created, if not by public pressure? And how would publish pressure be created if not by talking about the amoral behavior of companies?

pasabagi 7y ago
In general, but not in specific. Saying that a specific practice should be illegal is productive. Saying that a particular company is bad is not - they'll simply say, 'we follow the law'. And they'll be right. Then the politicians will say, 'you can't ban Amazon'. And they'll also be right, because laws can't be targeted against specific groups. If you target specific techniques and practices (for instance, child labour, historically) then the supporters and lobbyists have to actually justify the problematic stuff - they can't just hide behind the nebulous vagueness of all the things big companies do.