4 ms·

I'd say the stock owners.

by ginko 6y ago

oarsinsync 6y ago
If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years. Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?
- dddeeerrr9999 6y ago
  The stock market is not the economy. All you are ultimately advocating for is keeping the exiting corrupt corporate leadership in charge and preventing market forces from replacing them with ethical leaders.
- munk-a 6y ago
  When you give someone money to do a thing you have responsibility about that thing. If someone is running a clearly illegal business (trafficing illegal drugs, humans) and you are aware of this and invest in their business then you become an accessory you are not immune to liability for crimes you were aware of before investing - you are immune to liability for actions taken without your knowledge (which is what we assume the great deal of actions taken by investees are). Causing another massive shock to the stock market is the correct response here because nearly everyone is engaged in behavior that harms society and should be stopped. Also, the market will recover and really isn't that important. If a small proportion of actors were engaged in this activity then getting an industry compact or other token gesture might be good enough to correct it.
vorpalhex 6y ago
So pension funds and teacher's unions? Grandpa's nest egg?
- vertex-four 6y ago
  If people were affected by the things they give companies money to do, perhaps they'd be a lot more careful about what they give companies money to do.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    To the point where it's not worth giving companies money at all. Stockholders aren't involved in day-to-day ops, anyway, so you're placing the blame at the wrong place. It should be placed on the C-suite.
    - iso1631 6y ago
      The problem with modern capitalism is that people can get all the benefits but avoid the bulk of the risk
      - vorpalhex 6y ago
        The alternative seems like a strange land where we imprison waste management workers for their pension funds being invested in companies they have literally have no control over and no ability to discover the behavior of. Or should we restrict the stock market only to the rich and powerful?
Swizec 6y ago
So pension funds? That smells dangerous

I'd say the stock owners.

by ginko 6y ago

I'd say the stock owners.

If the risk of investing is goes from (Value of your investment can drop to zero) and is now (Your entire personal fortune is at risk), what do you think is the outcome? Thinking 1 month, 6 months, 12 months, 5 years. Or to put it another way, is causing another massive economic shock the correct response to a dark patterns on websites?

dddeeerrr9999 6y ago
The stock market is not the economy. All you are ultimately advocating for is keeping the exiting corrupt corporate leadership in charge and preventing market forces from replacing them with ethical leaders.
munk-a 6y ago
When you give someone money to do a thing you have responsibility about that thing. If someone is running a clearly illegal business (trafficing illegal drugs, humans) and you are aware of this and invest in their business then you become an accessory you are not immune to liability for crimes you were aware of before investing - you are immune to liability for actions taken without your knowledge (which is what we assume the great deal of actions taken by investees are). Causing another massive shock to the stock market is the correct response here because nearly everyone is engaged in behavior that harms society and should be stopped. Also, the market will recover and really isn't that important. If a small proportion of actors were engaged in this activity then getting an industry compact or other token gesture might be good enough to correct it.

vorpalhex 6y ago

So pension funds and teacher's unions? Grandpa's nest egg?

vertex-four 6y ago
If people were affected by the things they give companies money to do, perhaps they'd be a lot more careful about what they give companies money to do.
- freeone3000 6y ago
  To the point where it's not worth giving companies money at all. Stockholders aren't involved in day-to-day ops, anyway, so you're placing the blame at the wrong place. It should be placed on the C-suite.
  - iso1631 6y ago
    The problem with modern capitalism is that people can get all the benefits but avoid the bulk of the risk
    - vorpalhex 6y ago
      The alternative seems like a strange land where we imprison waste management workers for their pension funds being invested in companies they have literally have no control over and no ability to discover the behavior of. Or should we restrict the stock market only to the rich and powerful?

Swizec 6y ago

So pension funds? That smells dangerous