3 ms·

The supply chain is a symptom, not the disease. Our hypothetical billionaire could close down (or increase prices, for the same effect), but his piece would eit

The supply chain is a symptom, not the disease. Our hypothetical billionaire could close down (or increase prices, for the same effect), but his piece would either be grabbed by another ruthless business man wanting to be a billionaire or simply merged with the existing competitors. Unless you make people change their lifestyle, closing carbon-intensive production lines is just playing whack-a-mole. So, in reality, he really has not that much more power than you. And yes, you as a consumer can make a large difference. You can choose to not eat meat, not drive a car, buy your clothes from eco-friendly shops and dedicate your life to make a change. It's just not as convenient as saying 'rich man bad'. People who try can change the world - see beyond meat and Tesla for success stories. Not doing so, but instead chasing a life of personal wealth and well-being is, simply stated, greed. With different amounts of money involved, sure, but the exact same greed. People starving in Africa do not have a choice, yes - but we do. We just choose to blame 'better connected' people because it's easy. I fully agree with you, however, that lobbying for the wrong thing is definitely bad and something that can be done far more effectively by billionaires. Still, it does not absolve you from your own failures.

throwaway894345 5y ago
> The supply chain is a symptom, not the disease. Our hypothetical billionaire could close down (or increase prices, for the same effect), but his piece would either be grabbed by another ruthless business man wanting to be a billionaire or simply merged with the existing competitors. Unless you make people change their lifestyle, closing carbon-intensive production lines is just playing whack-a-mole. So, in reality, he really has not that much more power than you. That might be true if votes weren't for sale (lobbying, campaign contributions, etc), but they are and thus political power is proportional to wealth. Our hypothetical billionaire can advocate to preserve policies that allow him to profit by polluting the environment, which is to say plundering society (in that the environment is a shared resource--it belongs to all of society). To use your metaphor, the disease is that there isn't a mechanism to decouple political power from wealth.
- Sebb767 5y ago
  That's a failing on the side of our political system, but yes. We can definitely agree that using you power to lobby for the greater disadvantage is morally far worse than falling in line.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    Yes, it is a failing on the side of our political system, but the political system sets the rules that constrain the market including whether or not corporations can pollute for free or rely on foreign pseudo-slave labor. And this means they have lobbied to maintain a market that penalizes companies who don’t exploit the environment and/or slave labor and due to a lack of transparency (i.e., there are virtually no reliable indicators to inform consumers how environmentally friendly or humaine a given product is—indeed many alleged certification programs are shams set up by industry groups to mislead customers into believing they are buying ethical products) make virtually everyone complicit. That’s a heck of a big difference between the hypothetical billionaire and the middleclass family struggling to keep a bit of buffer between themselves and poverty.

throwaway894345 5y ago

> The supply chain is a symptom, not the disease. Our hypothetical billionaire could close down (or increase prices, for the same effect), but his piece would either be grabbed by another ruthless business man wanting to be a billionaire or simply merged with the existing competitors. Unless you make people change their lifestyle, closing carbon-intensive production lines is just playing whack-a-mole. So, in reality, he really has not that much more power than you. That might be true if votes weren't for sale (lobbying, campaign contributions, etc), but they are and thus political power is proportional to wealth. Our hypothetical billionaire can advocate to preserve policies that allow him to profit by polluting the environment, which is to say plundering society (in that the environment is a shared resource--it belongs to all of society). To use your metaphor, the disease is that there isn't a mechanism to decouple political power from wealth.

Sebb767 5y ago
That's a failing on the side of our political system, but yes. We can definitely agree that using you power to lobby for the greater disadvantage is morally far worse than falling in line.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  Yes, it is a failing on the side of our political system, but the political system sets the rules that constrain the market including whether or not corporations can pollute for free or rely on foreign pseudo-slave labor. And this means they have lobbied to maintain a market that penalizes companies who don’t exploit the environment and/or slave labor and due to a lack of transparency (i.e., there are virtually no reliable indicators to inform consumers how environmentally friendly or humaine a given product is—indeed many alleged certification programs are shams set up by industry groups to mislead customers into believing they are buying ethical products) make virtually everyone complicit. That’s a heck of a big difference between the hypothetical billionaire and the middleclass family struggling to keep a bit of buffer between themselves and poverty.