5 ms·

Government bailout, it's clearly too big to fail

atoav 3y ago
Socialization.
CoastalCoder 3y ago
I wonder - could a bankruptcy court simply transfer ownership of all 3M stock to the injured parties? Seems to me that would make them as whole as possible, while retaining 3M's ability to manufacture other crucial products.
- BobbyJo 3y ago
  That's effectively how bankruptcy works but with more paperwork. You take assets (whether it's the deeds to the equipment or ownership of the whole company via stock) and you give the value of that (in the form of money or assets) to the claimants. Either way it's a transfer of wealth from the current business owners (stockholders) to claimants, just a matter of how that transfer happens.
NickC25 3y ago
Exactly. They should be nationalized. If they are the only producer of a number of strategically important materials, nationalization needs to happen. The private markets are great, but cannot be trusted to clean up after their own mess - they have proven this time and time and time again. The taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for this payout, and that's simply unacceptable. If the public has to bail out this company, at the very least, the board and C-Suite need to be liquidated and be fined substantially for this sort of behavior. They've known about the danger of these chemicals for almost 60 years, and not once did they (AFAIK) go to the government and actively ask for help to replace said chemicals with safer alternatives that don't literally last forever if consumed.
- gwright 3y ago
  Right, because nationalized industries/companies have a wonderful track record of environmental concern and practices? I'm not sure what the solution is to these problems (or this particular problem) but "nationalizing" producers certainly isn't one of them. Destroying 3M isn't one either. I don't understand the approach to difficult problems that starts with thinking "the government" is effectively a magic wand.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    I'm not saying nationalized companies are great. I'm saying that if a company engages in such deceptive practices with materials that they know are toxic, and they fail to disclose that to the relevant parties (the government, and the people), they have no business being in business, as they are effectively externalizing the risk their products put on the rest of us. Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Otherwise, you're going to just encourage more of this behavior...because the flip side is a really ugly precedent to set. You want companies to use toxic chemicals in their products, lie about it, and when found out, just pay some fine and walk away like nothing happened? No, there has to be a line where we say "you made a ton of money by lying to us and putting toxic chemicals in our air, our water, and our bodies. you're going to now pay that back with substantial interest, and be barred from ever being in a position of any level of corporate power whatsoever for the rest of your life". The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again. In countries like China, executives get disappeared for such hubris.
    - youreincorrect 3y ago
      > Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in existence ever capable of creating some mysterious chemical yet also only have a $50B market capitalization (if their chemicals were so rare, impossible to produce, and highly sought after, market cap would be higher). > The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again. I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public. I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Socialization.

I wonder - could a bankruptcy court simply transfer ownership of all 3M stock to the injured parties? Seems to me that would make them as whole as possible, while retaining 3M's ability to manufacture other crucial products.

BobbyJo 3y ago
That's effectively how bankruptcy works but with more paperwork. You take assets (whether it's the deeds to the equipment or ownership of the whole company via stock) and you give the value of that (in the form of money or assets) to the claimants. Either way it's a transfer of wealth from the current business owners (stockholders) to claimants, just a matter of how that transfer happens.

NickC25 3y ago

Exactly. They should be nationalized. If they are the only producer of a number of strategically important materials, nationalization needs to happen. The private markets are great, but cannot be trusted to clean up after their own mess - they have proven this time and time and time again. The taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for this payout, and that's simply unacceptable. If the public has to bail out this company, at the very least, the board and C-Suite need to be liquidated and be fined substantially for this sort of behavior. They've known about the danger of these chemicals for almost 60 years, and not once did they (AFAIK) go to the government and actively ask for help to replace said chemicals with safer alternatives that don't literally last forever if consumed.

gwright 3y ago
Right, because nationalized industries/companies have a wonderful track record of environmental concern and practices? I'm not sure what the solution is to these problems (or this particular problem) but "nationalizing" producers certainly isn't one of them. Destroying 3M isn't one either. I don't understand the approach to difficult problems that starts with thinking "the government" is effectively a magic wand.
- NickC25 3y ago
  I'm not saying nationalized companies are great. I'm saying that if a company engages in such deceptive practices with materials that they know are toxic, and they fail to disclose that to the relevant parties (the government, and the people), they have no business being in business, as they are effectively externalizing the risk their products put on the rest of us. Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Otherwise, you're going to just encourage more of this behavior...because the flip side is a really ugly precedent to set. You want companies to use toxic chemicals in their products, lie about it, and when found out, just pay some fine and walk away like nothing happened? No, there has to be a line where we say "you made a ton of money by lying to us and putting toxic chemicals in our air, our water, and our bodies. you're going to now pay that back with substantial interest, and be barred from ever being in a position of any level of corporate power whatsoever for the rest of your life". The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again. In countries like China, executives get disappeared for such hubris.
  - youreincorrect 3y ago
    > Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in existence ever capable of creating some mysterious chemical yet also only have a $50B market capitalization (if their chemicals were so rare, impossible to produce, and highly sought after, market cap would be higher). > The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again. I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public. I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]