6 ms·

Curious how we assign moral blame. Sure, Boeing put Wall Street first ahead of safety. But why isn't the headline "Wall Street put profits ahead of safety".

by rhelz 3y ago

Curious how we assign moral blame. Sure, Boeing put Wall Street first ahead of safety. But why isn't the headline "Wall Street put profits ahead of safety". Or "The electorate chooses capitalism over safety." During the oil crisis, highway speed limits were reduced to 55 mph, to ease the gas shortage. But an unexpected side effect was that about 4,000 less people died in car crashes each year. Would you be willing to drive slower to save lives? Put it another way: how many people would you be willing to kill to be able to drive at 65mph? Its so easy to sit there and put the blame on some amorphous, anonymous, abstraction like "Wall Street" because it exonerates you and you can feel all self-righteous. But if you were in the same position, are you so sure you'd give up your annual bonus? Or put your stock options underwater? When you knew full well that if you didn't they would just fire you and hire somebody who would?

flandish 3y ago
Easy: If this is proven to be a criminal act, even of criminal negligence, charge not only the people making decisions, the board members, but also shareholders, relative to their holdings. Including grouped stocks such as funds. All it will take is once for this to happen and shareholders to actually think about the repercussions of “investing” in corporations that do this kind of thing.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > All it will take is once for this to happen and shareholders to actually think about the repercussions of “investing” in corporations that do this kind of thing Right, you wouldn’t invest in American business, period. (Also, how do you criminally charge someone on a pro rata basis? Do you send every American with a pension to jail for 1/31,000,000th the jail time?)
  - flandish 3y ago
    >pro rata Yes. Yes you do. You set a minimum then fine below that minimum.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      At that point you’ll need to go full Soviet. Seize resources and have the state deploy them. Because in no rational world would someone accept criminal liability on behalf of someone they do not control. So to stop a capital exodus, you’d need to seize the means of production (and incur the stasis that comes from centralising economic decision making among the political class). Would be pretty convenient for America if China or Russia adopted your proposal…
      - flandish 3y ago
        …I’m ok with a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist society. This does not worry me.
- jdlshore 3y ago
  Easy? You’re letting your outrage short-circuit your brain. There’s no way you’ve thought this ridiculous proposal through. Boeing is part of the S&P 500. Almost every American who has stocks is going to have a fund that includes Boeing. That includes people with 401Ks, so basically everyone in the middle class. You’re talking about charging a 100 million people. Okay, so maybe that’s what you intended. Now what? Does everybody now have a criminal record? What exactly are they charged with? Negligent homicide? A fraction of a percent of the deaths from the 737 Max? Who charges them? How does it get through the courts? What are the exact consequences, and why does Joe Random Schmoe deserve those consequences? Let’s see you actually think this through.
  - flandish 3y ago
    Like I said - all it will take is once. Below a certain holding quantity, fine the shareholders. I didn’t say it was simple. Capitalism has destroyed more lives than it’s really worth. If it wants to keep existing its capital owners should be held responsible.
- rhelz 3y ago
  > If this is proven to be a criminal act So who committed the crime? The exec who wanted to save money? Saving money is the prime directive. Why is it his fault that he was given bad advice by his engineers about it? Did the engineers commit the crime? Does your computer software have no bugs in it? Arn't the testers and inspectors supposed to give the proper feedback? Did the testers and inspectors commit the crime? Well, some of those testers and inspectors worked for Boeing, some worked for the FAA--and some worked for the people who bought the airplanes. If there was a serious problem, surely some of them would have spoken up... Exactly who was the criminal? Who is guilty of "criminal neglect?"
  - dumpsterlid 3y ago
    [dead]
  - flandish 3y ago
    > Saving money is the prime directive This is what makes all of capitalism deplorable - and sometimes criminal. When people are hurt - even knowingly - the owners need to be held to task.
armada651 3y ago
> Its so easy to put the blame on some amorphous, anonymous abstraction like "Wall Street" because we can feel self-righteous. But things are the way they are because--by and large--we like them that way. This argument entirely ignores that lobbying and political donations skew government policy to benefit a small minority on Wall Street.
someone7x 3y ago
> Its so easy to put the blame on some amorphous, anonymous abstraction like "Wall Street" because we can feel self-righteous. But things are the way they are because--by and large--we like them that way. Could it be that the electorate’s power to effect change has become usurped by lobbyists? No, it is the voters who are wrong.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Could it be that the electorate’s power to effect change has become usurped by lobbyists? To the degree voters get apathetic or distracted by culture war issues, sure. When the electorate gives a shit about something, electeds listen. Most issues simply don’t rise to that level. Case in point: Boeing; nobody is going to beat their competitor by promising to be tougher on Boeing.
dreamcompiler 3y ago
> Would you be willing to drive slower to save lives? No. Because people still died when the speed limit was 55. Why then didn't we lower the speed limit to 45? Heck, we could stop people from dying altogether by simply banning driving! So why didn't we do that?
- rhelz 3y ago
  > Why then didn't we lower the speed limit to 45? Great question. Why didn't we? How many people are you willing to kill to be able to drive at 65mph instead of 45 mph??
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

by rhelz 3y ago

flandish 3y ago

Easy: If this is proven to be a criminal act, even of criminal negligence, charge not only the people making decisions, the board members, but also shareholders, relative to their holdings. Including grouped stocks such as funds. All it will take is once for this to happen and shareholders to actually think about the repercussions of “investing” in corporations that do this kind of thing.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> All it will take is once for this to happen and shareholders to actually think about the repercussions of “investing” in corporations that do this kind of thing Right, you wouldn’t invest in American business, period. (Also, how do you criminally charge someone on a pro rata basis? Do you send every American with a pension to jail for 1/31,000,000th the jail time?)
- flandish 3y ago
  >pro rata Yes. Yes you do. You set a minimum then fine below that minimum.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    At that point you’ll need to go full Soviet. Seize resources and have the state deploy them. Because in no rational world would someone accept criminal liability on behalf of someone they do not control. So to stop a capital exodus, you’d need to seize the means of production (and incur the stasis that comes from centralising economic decision making among the political class). Would be pretty convenient for America if China or Russia adopted your proposal…
    - flandish 3y ago
      …I’m ok with a classless, stateless, moneyless, communist society. This does not worry me.
jdlshore 3y ago
Easy? You’re letting your outrage short-circuit your brain. There’s no way you’ve thought this ridiculous proposal through. Boeing is part of the S&P 500. Almost every American who has stocks is going to have a fund that includes Boeing. That includes people with 401Ks, so basically everyone in the middle class. You’re talking about charging a 100 million people. Okay, so maybe that’s what you intended. Now what? Does everybody now have a criminal record? What exactly are they charged with? Negligent homicide? A fraction of a percent of the deaths from the 737 Max? Who charges them? How does it get through the courts? What are the exact consequences, and why does Joe Random Schmoe deserve those consequences? Let’s see you actually think this through.
- flandish 3y ago
  Like I said - all it will take is once. Below a certain holding quantity, fine the shareholders. I didn’t say it was simple. Capitalism has destroyed more lives than it’s really worth. If it wants to keep existing its capital owners should be held responsible.
rhelz 3y ago
> If this is proven to be a criminal act So who committed the crime? The exec who wanted to save money? Saving money is the prime directive. Why is it his fault that he was given bad advice by his engineers about it? Did the engineers commit the crime? Does your computer software have no bugs in it? Arn't the testers and inspectors supposed to give the proper feedback? Did the testers and inspectors commit the crime? Well, some of those testers and inspectors worked for Boeing, some worked for the FAA--and some worked for the people who bought the airplanes. If there was a serious problem, surely some of them would have spoken up... Exactly who was the criminal? Who is guilty of "criminal neglect?"
- dumpsterlid 3y ago
  [dead]
- flandish 3y ago
  > Saving money is the prime directive This is what makes all of capitalism deplorable - and sometimes criminal. When people are hurt - even knowingly - the owners need to be held to task.

armada651 3y ago

> Its so easy to put the blame on some amorphous, anonymous abstraction like "Wall Street" because we can feel self-righteous. But things are the way they are because--by and large--we like them that way. This argument entirely ignores that lobbying and political donations skew government policy to benefit a small minority on Wall Street.

someone7x 3y ago

> Its so easy to put the blame on some amorphous, anonymous abstraction like "Wall Street" because we can feel self-righteous. But things are the way they are because--by and large--we like them that way. Could it be that the electorate’s power to effect change has become usurped by lobbyists? No, it is the voters who are wrong.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Could it be that the electorate’s power to effect change has become usurped by lobbyists? To the degree voters get apathetic or distracted by culture war issues, sure. When the electorate gives a shit about something, electeds listen. Most issues simply don’t rise to that level. Case in point: Boeing; nobody is going to beat their competitor by promising to be tougher on Boeing.

dreamcompiler 3y ago

> Would you be willing to drive slower to save lives? No. Because people still died when the speed limit was 55. Why then didn't we lower the speed limit to 45? Heck, we could stop people from dying altogether by simply banning driving! So why didn't we do that?

rhelz 3y ago
> Why then didn't we lower the speed limit to 45? Great question. Why didn't we? How many people are you willing to kill to be able to drive at 65mph instead of 45 mph??
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]