3 ms·
To be fair, if you follow the GP's formula, and magically plug in the correct numbers...you'll socialize the gains as well. Because the social losses of the pol
by reaperman 3y ago
To be fair, if you follow the GP's formula, and magically plug in the correct numbers...you'll socialize the gains as well. Because the social losses of the pollution will be offset by the high fines. It's a fair system, it just moves agency for "who can pollute for the social good?" from the government to the private corporation.
I don't love it personally, but it's decidedly not "Privatized profits and socialized losses". It's explicitly a system to make sure that the profits are shared from the damaging-corporation, to the government of the people damaged. In theory, I think they have a great point, which might be workable to inform future fine frameworks (we will always need fines in addition to anything else, and this isn't the worst way to set the fines). In reality, I suspect that captive government officials will set some of the variables far too "in-favor" of the corporations in exchange for backroom deals or cronyism.
But it's far from the worst idea I've seen.
- horsawlarway 3y agoBut the issue is that it's not "who can pollute for the social good?". It's "Who's been doing some serious illegal dumping?". In almost all of these cases - the issue is NOT that the company simply didn't know what was going to happen (although in many cases this is where they started). It's that the company hid facts, lied, manipulated the public, and in general attempted to squash any and all evidence that might hurt their profits. The first is acceptable. The second should be met with termination (as in - the companies that do this should have leadership removed: anything from jail time to nationalization).