4 ms·

Corporations need to focus on being efficient, and doing what they do best within the rules. Government should concern itself with doing its best to continue a

• nebulousthree 4y ago
  Corporations are people and how dare you threaten peoples' agencies like that! You wouldn't propose that of a human group, so why do it to non-human persons??
  • mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
    I know you're being sarcastic here. But man it depresses me how many people seem to unironically think this way.
  • moonchrome 4y ago
    I don't get the satire - you would propose the same regulation for individuals ? Don't see anything corporation specific about the comment.
  • theropost 4y ago
    I actually like that corporations want to be considered people - that means they are not above the law, no matter the size, therefore if they cause harm to people(s), and it is intentional/illegal it is entirely within the right of government to stop them.
• mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  Economists might favour something like a progressive tax on untested chemicals in consumer products. The less safety testing you do, the more expensive they will be to use. Because you put your finger on the sociological problem at hand here. It's just cheaper to do the wrong thing right now. I always think that capitalism has this evolutionary nature where inevitably the biggest coroporations will be the ones that are maximally unethical within(or just enough outside that lawyers can handle it) the confines of the law. And you don't have to look far to find evidence of that. I think regulations need to be designed more with this evolutionary model in mind. It seems lost on most politicians currently.
  • kaashif 4y ago
    The problem with such taxes are that the proposed tax amounts are never actually high enough to account for the damage done. Should the tax be equivalent to the amount required to reverse the damage? This is assuming the damage is going to or can be repaired. For carbon emissions, I think the case for a tax is fairly clear, since we _can't_ just outright ban emissions, the harm is 100% known, and we can even estimate the cost of reversing the emissions through carbon capture. For these chemicals, it seems much less clear. The uncertainty is so great I don't think I could estimate an appropriate tax rate. The danger is that the alternatives presented are a ban, and a low tax that wouldn't solve the problem. Vested interests would push for the second option and present the problem as solved.
    • mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
      These are all good points. Making corporations more accountable for external costs is maybe the great challenge of our time. I think markets and capitalism are necessary. I can't help but think there must be some more fundamental selective pressure that can be applied that will lead to corporations that take externalised cost into account being more successful over time. I have no suggestions. I'm not sure anyone does. But I can't quite get it out my mind lately. I even caught myself considering going off to study evolutionary economics. The 25 year old me would stare at me in incredulity upon hearing this. I feel like the social sciences have a ways to go still before being able to answer questions like this.
    • zajio1am 4y ago
      But you have to also take into account damage caused by not using these chemicals.
• 8note 4y ago
  Would consider an assassin service blameless because government regulation was good enough. While good regulations are good, companies are made of people, and the people need to act like it