3 ms·
To me this is an example of 3 negative features of free markets, exacerbated by a kyriarchic system, but I think it's fixable with work. The three issues I see
by wpietri 5y ago
To me this is an example of 3 negative features of free markets, exacerbated by a kyriarchic system, but I think it's fixable with work.
The three issues I see: One, the short-term market incentive was for them to have something patentable and controllable. Two, the money accrued to them but the harms fell to others, creating a huge negative externality. And three, free markets in goods tend to create markets in political power.
This is all exacerbated in a kyriarchic [1] system, one where domination hierarchies are normalized. Negative environmental externalities tend to fall on disfavored groups. The workers getting poisoned with lead were lower class; especially in that era, their deaths were seen as acceptable. Toxic spills don't happen on the Harvard campus or in wealthy suburbs, because however "safe" that stuff is in the official view, it's not so safe that elites will live next to it. Etc, etc.
We could eliminate a lot of this with just by preventing any money flow from business to politics. No donations, no gifts, no ads, no PACs. Perhaps no lobbyists. Politicians live on fixed budgets, any private wealth is put in index funds, and they are restricted after public service in what they can earn. The finances of politicians and former politicians are entirely public. The finances of executives and companies are also entirely public. We have well-funded, independent ethics watchdogs.
Then on top of that we have well-funded public science systems with empowered public health authorities. That definitely exists in the US at least in patches, so I think we could make rapid progress here.
And then I'd want to see strong laws where people making and profiting from harm are always held accountable. If we look at the 2008 financial crisis, nobody went to jail. A lot of people got rich doing dodgy things, and a few of them had to give a fraction of the money back. That did not teach a lot of lessons. One could argue that's ok in finance (although I wouldn't). But when it results in physical harm and death, I think the money and power should not be separable from the consequences. Currently CEOs and execs take paydays and walk away from things where I think negligent homicide charges are merited. Instead of "Gosh, I didn't know" being an acceptable excuse, I think the standard of "knew or should have known" and "could have acted differently" should be sufficient for execs.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
- ryandrake 5y ago> Politicians live on fixed budgets, any private wealth is put in index funds I like where you are going with all this, but I'll nitpick here that while tying politicians' wealth to the overall stock market in general reduces their incentive to legislate in favor of particular companies, it does provide them incentive to legislate in favor of corporate America in general. We don't need laws that help stock market participants. ~50% of Americans don't hold stock in any form, even through mutual funds or retirement accounts. I don't know what the solution is. As long as rule making can disproportionately affect the rule maker's own personal wealth and wellbeing, you have a conflict of interest.
- wpietri 5y agoGood point. I'd be happy with any sort of blind trust where it's reasonably correlated with overall economic health.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago>correlated with overall economic health. How is this measured?
- wpietri 5y agoThat's the rub, of course. I suspect there's a whole array of valid measures sufficient to blunt incentives. We don't need something perfect, just enough so legislators don't gain so much that their pecuniary motivations override their duty to public service (and their fear of getting caught). Right now they can profit massively from legislation by betting on individual companies. If they're instead looking at a blind trust that contains a mix of index funds, bond funds, etc, then they still are aligned with the wealthy, which is certainly bad, but any gains they can drive for themselves become much smaller.
- ryandrake 5y agoI'd like to see a system where, while in office, a representative's income is hard capped at the median income (or some multiplier of median) of the people they represent. This could apply to the president, too.
- mcguire 5y agoAdd in a requirement for politicians to share wives, and I think you have Plato's philosopher-kings.