4 ms·

What you are proposing is great in a black-and-white world where some party is doing something strictly “bad” and harming society for their own gain, but it’s d

by lumb63 3y ago

What you are proposing is great in a black-and-white world where some party is doing something strictly “bad” and harming society for their own gain, but it’s disingenuous to pretend that everything is “good” or “bad” behavior. A lot of people have benefited in some way from PFAS products, like non-stick pans, waterproof clothing, etc. The problem is that the cost of those benefits was intentionally covered up to influence consumer behavior. Now, the logical thing as a society is to assess what we lost due to that bad behavior, and recoup that, maybe plus some punitive measure. Look at different products to get an idea of what I’m talking about. For instance, prescription medicine often has side effects. People are aware of the side effects, typically, and make an assessment of whether the benefits outweigh the costs. When we discover that companies did not correctly assess the side effects, we react accordingly, and fine them, ban them from selling the product, etc. But some of those drugs, despite unknown side effects, do a lot of good in the world.

horsawlarway 3y ago
> The problem is that the cost of those benefits was intentionally covered up to influence consumer behavior. Now, the logical thing as a society is to assess what we lost due to that bad behavior, and recoup that, maybe plus some punitive measure. So go back to the first point where the company is acting in bad faith: Covering up data that shows a danger. Take EVERY fucking cent since then. If they don't have it? Nationalize them. You're still entirely focused on the "Recover the commons" side of this, and what I'm saying is that punishment is used to establish the set of accepted social rules we play by. Right now, we're saying "Lie all you want, obfuscate all you want, Literally kill people to make money - don't worry, we'll only fine you 5% of the profit you make doing it. (in reality: the fine here was less than 2% of the revenue made)" My attitude is that this is unacceptable. I am not a fool - the world is incredibly complex and I know full well there is a LOT of nuance around this topic. I still find it utterly galling that we're issuing fines that are literally chump change compared to the profits these companies are making. ---- So given that we've been trying the whole "fine them but not too hard" strategy, and we have clear evidence that companies treat these fines as simple costs of business... At what point do you admit that maybe a slap on the wrist is no longer the right answer?
- lumb63 3y ago
  I’m not advocating for a “slap on the wrist”. Between “slap on the wrist” and “take every cent and nationalize the company” is a very large range of ways to handle the matter. What confuses me is why you seemingly do not believe companies’ fines should correlate with the damage they’ve done. Your stance seems to be a boolean “company did bad”, which invalidates their right to any profit they ever made. That doesn’t seem very fair. An example: I went to a full-service gas station once, and asked the attendant for a full tank of 87 octane. I watched him select 93 octane (for an additional 70 cents per gallon), so my full tank came out $10 more expensive than it would have otherwise been. Clearly he was operating his business in bad faith. My remediation was to dispute the charge with my credit card company, and I paid the price of the 87 octane fuel after all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the remediation you’re proposing seems to be that all profit that gas station made from that point on was invalid and ought to be taken from them, since they were operating in bad faith. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but that seems a huge overreaction to me. There is a whole world of shady and fraudulent businesses between “pumped the wrong octane gas” and “multi-generation coverup of externalities that will irreparably damage our health or ecosystem”. I believe the worst offenders should be punished, and harshly, because the damage they’ve done is so great (and often understated in these types of cases, IMO), but I don’t think we should indiscriminately nullify entire businesses over more mild issues.
  - horsawlarway 3y ago
    > What confuses me is why you seemingly do not believe companies’ fines should correlate with the damage they’ve done. Because a LARGE part of the damage they've done IS the bad behavior. It's the lying, hiding of evidence that things are harmful, manipulation of the public and regulators. Those are ALL damage. They damage our social construct. That's in addition to the actual damage the product they're selling is doing to our environment and bodies. I understand that it is basically impossible to bring a product to market without causing some sort of harm. At a minimum you are likely burning oil/coal product and consuming resources. You might also be creating products that we know and understand are dangerous - and we apply rules to those companies to limit and offset those costs. THAT'S ALL FINE! If we can have a discussion about the harms and decide "we the people" are ok with it... It's absolutely fucking unnacceptable when one greedy party KNOWS they are doing harm, and is hiding it from the public, because they know having to deal with additional taxes/regulation/monitoring will hurt their bottom line. The literal harm here is the lying. If the company published the documents as soon as they knew... or were transparent from the start... then sure, lets have a small fine to help clean it up and address it moving forward. If the company instead goes "Fuck that - I'm going to hide this to make as much money as possible and bank on being fined like I didn't know and was playing ball"... then fuck em, nationalize that fucker.

by lumb63 3y ago

horsawlarway 3y ago

> The problem is that the cost of those benefits was intentionally covered up to influence consumer behavior. Now, the logical thing as a society is to assess what we lost due to that bad behavior, and recoup that, maybe plus some punitive measure. So go back to the first point where the company is acting in bad faith: Covering up data that shows a danger. Take EVERY fucking cent since then. If they don't have it? Nationalize them. You're still entirely focused on the "Recover the commons" side of this, and what I'm saying is that punishment is used to establish the set of accepted social rules we play by. Right now, we're saying "Lie all you want, obfuscate all you want, Literally kill people to make money - don't worry, we'll only fine you 5% of the profit you make doing it. (in reality: the fine here was less than 2% of the revenue made)" My attitude is that this is unacceptable. I am not a fool - the world is incredibly complex and I know full well there is a LOT of nuance around this topic. I still find it utterly galling that we're issuing fines that are literally chump change compared to the profits these companies are making. ---- So given that we've been trying the whole "fine them but not too hard" strategy, and we have clear evidence that companies treat these fines as simple costs of business... At what point do you admit that maybe a slap on the wrist is no longer the right answer?

lumb63 3y ago
I’m not advocating for a “slap on the wrist”. Between “slap on the wrist” and “take every cent and nationalize the company” is a very large range of ways to handle the matter. What confuses me is why you seemingly do not believe companies’ fines should correlate with the damage they’ve done. Your stance seems to be a boolean “company did bad”, which invalidates their right to any profit they ever made. That doesn’t seem very fair. An example: I went to a full-service gas station once, and asked the attendant for a full tank of 87 octane. I watched him select 93 octane (for an additional 70 cents per gallon), so my full tank came out $10 more expensive than it would have otherwise been. Clearly he was operating his business in bad faith. My remediation was to dispute the charge with my credit card company, and I paid the price of the 87 octane fuel after all. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the remediation you’re proposing seems to be that all profit that gas station made from that point on was invalid and ought to be taken from them, since they were operating in bad faith. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, but that seems a huge overreaction to me. There is a whole world of shady and fraudulent businesses between “pumped the wrong octane gas” and “multi-generation coverup of externalities that will irreparably damage our health or ecosystem”. I believe the worst offenders should be punished, and harshly, because the damage they’ve done is so great (and often understated in these types of cases, IMO), but I don’t think we should indiscriminately nullify entire businesses over more mild issues.
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  > What confuses me is why you seemingly do not believe companies’ fines should correlate with the damage they’ve done. Because a LARGE part of the damage they've done IS the bad behavior. It's the lying, hiding of evidence that things are harmful, manipulation of the public and regulators. Those are ALL damage. They damage our social construct. That's in addition to the actual damage the product they're selling is doing to our environment and bodies. I understand that it is basically impossible to bring a product to market without causing some sort of harm. At a minimum you are likely burning oil/coal product and consuming resources. You might also be creating products that we know and understand are dangerous - and we apply rules to those companies to limit and offset those costs. THAT'S ALL FINE! If we can have a discussion about the harms and decide "we the people" are ok with it... It's absolutely fucking unnacceptable when one greedy party KNOWS they are doing harm, and is hiding it from the public, because they know having to deal with additional taxes/regulation/monitoring will hurt their bottom line. The literal harm here is the lying. If the company published the documents as soon as they knew... or were transparent from the start... then sure, lets have a small fine to help clean it up and address it moving forward. If the company instead goes "Fuck that - I'm going to hide this to make as much money as possible and bank on being fined like I didn't know and was playing ball"... then fuck em, nationalize that fucker.