4 ms·
> It seems from the outside that they’re choosing the latter. I agree, but I think the reason why is "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Sure, other companies or
by techsupporter 5y ago
> It seems from the outside that they’re choosing the latter.
I agree, but I think the reason why is "it won't happen to me" syndrome. Sure, other companies or people might get regulated out of existence, but in the short term maximizing profits and hoping or expecting to see the boulder rolling downhill in time to get out of the way is seen as the better plan. Because if you're right, you get to keep a lot of money. And if you're wrong, well, you don't think you'll be wrong.
This seems to be the thinking of our entire economic system in the United States. Grab as much money as humanly possible, regardless of any future consequences, even if the very act of the grabbing increases the odds of a much worse outcome.
- ashtonkem 5y agoI think it's a bit of that, and the execs are aware that they'll always land on their feet, even if their company and workers won't. After all, if none of the bankers from 2008 went to jail, what does a Blue Cross VP have to fear?
- cratermoon 5y agoNone of the executives in the tobacco industry ever went to jail. I'm not even sure any of them ever felt any personal consequences, at least not of any lasting nature.