3 ms·

The difference is that the money laundering was not caused by you getting a haircut. Money laundering is not an inherent externality of getting your hair cut.

• rdsubhas 3y ago
  If that's the accepted approach, then ask what's at the root of that again: Their centralized, clickbait marketing everywhere triggers a high % of the action. So at least, going by the logic of "who triggers" _(not going into sensibility or customer IQ/EQ, but purely sticking to the point that was OP described clearly – "who triggers")_ – the company's Marketing departments are definitely a direct trigger, and at least that portion (% of non-organic) should be held accountable by the company.
  • nicbou 3y ago
    Take some responsibility for yourself. You're a grown up with some level of agency.
    • rdsubhas 3y ago
      Just to make it clear: Coming from a village in rural India, I have a far tinier, frugal life footprint than most. My family takes public transport daily. It's still untrue the way the GP comment is phrased, that companies do absolutely nothing wrong and everything is only because of "people". Reality is a proportion. We in India know tragedy of commons too well: blame everybody and nothing significant happens. It's not a solution, it's a rant.
• tshaddox 3y ago
  No externalities are inherent. The company you buy your products from could choose to internalize costs.