8 ms·

I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump

I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. Yeah, dump in the rivers, dump in the woods, just drive around in circles dumping in an empty lot. You don’t need masks- give everyone cancer and blow some shit up, maybe get some acid burns. Super-fund sites? When was the last one we had anyway- we need more of ‘em- lots more! Let’s let the kids eat the lead paint and complain of the smells wafting into their cars from the chemical, paper, etc. plants on road trips, just like the olden days!

absurdo 1y ago
[flagged]
userbinator 1y ago
[flagged]
- vkou 1y ago
  Strangely enough, I'm not seeing anyone lining up to take $3/hr jobs sewing t-shirts for sale to China.
- 01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
  [flagged]
- tehwebguy 1y ago
  [flagged]
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  > The US saw how China rose to dominate manufacturing, and would like to go back to being a manufacturing power again. If that were the case, the US would be dumping trillions into spinning up manufacturing like China did. The US has the power to do this, they did it during WWII, and like it or not, this current era requires heavy strategic investments that may not produce returns for decades, if at all. It's what China is doing and if the US were trying to compete, they'd do the same. We were getting somewhat close to this with the CHIPS Act, but that's on the chopping block[1], too. Truth is US capital is happy to sell off manufacturing capability to cash in on cheap labor, and there is no monetary incentive to re-shore manufacturing capacity unless the government provides serious incentives or does it themselves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act#Subsequent_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act#Subseque...
- b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
  They're gonna be sorely disappointed if they thing de-regulation is the path to bringing back some pre-lapsarian golden age of American manufacturing that didn't actually exist
- Loughla 1y ago
  You're being down voted but you're right. Bringing manufacturing back is a stated goal of this administration. Nevermind that you're not going to convince an American to work for Chinese wages in a sweatshop. Ignore that. But the intended outcome of everything Dump is doing is to de-emphasize advanced education, bring back all basic manufacturing, and restore the "traditional" American values (white, straight, Christian). It's an absolutely stupid idea, but he's been pretty clear about it.
- atomicfiredoll 1y ago
  My understanding from folks outside the U.S. is that they desire U.S. products because they trust the safety more. I'm not sure everyone quite understands that by gutting [regulations], they trash part of their international advantage. I'm no expert, but even if they somehow managed to get manufacturing back, slashing your competitive advantages and just taking the market position of "China 2: This time it's more expensive" doesn't strike me as a winner for exports.
- garte 1y ago
  Biden actually tried that and bringing the country forward at the same time. It didn't pass and Republicans decried it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal Now they're going back 70 years instead of moving forward. Big brains there.
- Applejinx 1y ago
  I don't believe the actions being taken are really conducive to manufacturing greatness, or indeed technological greatness in any sense. I'd lump elimination of this board with elimination of obscure aviation safety committees normal people would never know about: actions that don't bear scrutiny at face value. i.e. perhaps the whole point is that breaking these things will do damage and lower the status and functionality of the United States, making it actively worse by a considerable amount and sabotaging key structural parts normal people wouldn't even know were there. In short, it's possible that it being bad is the point.
nerdsniper 1y ago
I wrote elsewhere: > Please note that the CSB is not an enforcement agency - they don’t assign fault or levee fines or bring any charges or write any regulation.
- smadge 1y ago
  What knowledge are you trying to impart with this fact? Do CSB recommendations inform policy? Do CSB recommendations get implemented? Do CSB recommendations when implemented increase safety?
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    I think if the goal is to “de-regulate”, there are other agencies that could be shut down instead. CSB provides all companies with the know-how to choose to prevent giant disasters. Shutting down this agency may be motivated by a desire to reduce regulation but it’s really counterproductive. Someone who is against regulation might still support the work of CSB because it assists the operations of any de-regulated industries.
- rectang 1y ago
  CSB investigations still represent an objective source of truth which competes with the PR that companies put out absolving themselves of blame in the event of any mishap. Removing the CSB frees up companies to "self-regulate" and blast out bogus framings.
  - monkeyelite 1y ago
    > an objective source of truth An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.
    - rectang 1y ago
      That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.
heavyset_go 1y ago
> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. The effects are functionally the same, but I think the ideology and rhetoric behind then and now have changed. There really isn't a purportedly "principled" system of logic behind these decisions, in the past these decisions would be dressed in principled rhetoric no matter how heinous they realistically were. They aren't even bothering to dress it up in rhetoric that says there is something noble behind these decisions.
- hedora 1y ago
  The 1950’s were when the US set up many of the post war institutions that are being dismantled now. Maybe you mean the 1850’s? (Though I’d guess the government was probably more forward looking back then too.)
- tehjoker 1y ago
  The principle is the rate of profit is falling, competing countries are rising, and they want to unleash the private sector in the hopes of raising GDP growth significantly enough to retain hegemony. This won't work, because they're fucking stupid, and they'll damage the health of the population and the productivity of the land and waters going forward, but there is a logic to it.
  - heavyset_go 1y ago
    I agree, I'm commenting on the outward justifications that are used to placate the public. In the past, a mountain of ideology and rhetoric would justify these decisions to the common person in an effort manufacture consent. They aren't even bothering to do that.
  - atmavatar 1y ago
    It's more like the current administration and the billionaires behind them are acting like private equity. Now that they have control of the government, they'll dismantle anything they can and set us on a path to destruction to squeeze out every bit of value they can for themselves. Those most responsible are either betting they won't be around long enough to deal with the smouldering wreckage or planning to ditch before the country hits rock bottom.
spacecadet 1y ago
LOL Super-fund site? You mean private equity opportunity for a housing development!
throw0101c 1y ago
> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. This is not from the 1950s, but from the 1970s, most famously (though others piled on after Friedman's (in)famous NYT letter): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine In the mid-twentieth century corporate management's focus was more broad: > This view was shared not only by scholars but, surprisingly, by many corporate executives. In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.” > Even the law bent, at least a bit, toward this “social” view of corporate purpose. When the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld corporate charitable donations in its 1956 A.P. Smith Manufacturing Co. decision, it rested its judgment less on any benefit that would accrue to the company than on the belief that corporations had responsibilities beyond those owed to shareholders; corporations needed, the court held, to “acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the communities within which they operate.” * https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/ https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-hi... The fact that people do not know this history, and think that corporation and capitalism was 'always' about only making money, limits the options under discussions for fixing some of the social ills we are experiencing currently. Yes: corporations need to (at least) break even to survive, and ideally have some sort of return, but there are degrees to which they have to push to accomplish this. * https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2025/06/18/beyond-profit-maximization-how-economists-studied-corporate-social-responsibility-in-the-1950s-1970s/ https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2025/06/18/beyond-pro... Some of the highest levels of economic growth (and its distribution to all) was done during times when shareholder primacy was not the main goal—though there were other factors, which may or may not be replicable, that helped with that growth: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...
12_throw_away 1y ago
> the old school 1950s views Hmmm, 1950s attitudes, hmm. What if we consider the hypothesis that the animus towards the CSB is for the absolute stupidest reasons possible? Here are the 3 current CSB board members [1-3]. [1] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-catherine-sandoval-/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-catherine-sandoval-... [2] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-sylvia-e-johnson-phd/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-sylvia-e-johnson-ph... [3] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-steve-owens-/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-steve-owens-/
rurban 1y ago
Just charge them with murder and those practices will stop.

absurdo 1y ago

[flagged]

userbinator 1y ago

[flagged]

vkou 1y ago
Strangely enough, I'm not seeing anyone lining up to take $3/hr jobs sewing t-shirts for sale to China.
01HNNWZ0MV43FF 1y ago
[flagged]
tehwebguy 1y ago
[flagged]
heavyset_go 1y ago
> The US saw how China rose to dominate manufacturing, and would like to go back to being a manufacturing power again. If that were the case, the US would be dumping trillions into spinning up manufacturing like China did. The US has the power to do this, they did it during WWII, and like it or not, this current era requires heavy strategic investments that may not produce returns for decades, if at all. It's what China is doing and if the US were trying to compete, they'd do the same. We were getting somewhat close to this with the CHIPS Act, but that's on the chopping block[1], too. Truth is US capital is happy to sell off manufacturing capability to cash in on cheap labor, and there is no monetary incentive to re-shore manufacturing capacity unless the government provides serious incentives or does it themselves. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act#Subsequent_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act#Subseque...
b00ty4breakfast 1y ago
They're gonna be sorely disappointed if they thing de-regulation is the path to bringing back some pre-lapsarian golden age of American manufacturing that didn't actually exist
Loughla 1y ago
You're being down voted but you're right. Bringing manufacturing back is a stated goal of this administration. Nevermind that you're not going to convince an American to work for Chinese wages in a sweatshop. Ignore that. But the intended outcome of everything Dump is doing is to de-emphasize advanced education, bring back all basic manufacturing, and restore the "traditional" American values (white, straight, Christian). It's an absolutely stupid idea, but he's been pretty clear about it.
atomicfiredoll 1y ago
My understanding from folks outside the U.S. is that they desire U.S. products because they trust the safety more. I'm not sure everyone quite understands that by gutting [regulations], they trash part of their international advantage. I'm no expert, but even if they somehow managed to get manufacturing back, slashing your competitive advantages and just taking the market position of "China 2: This time it's more expensive" doesn't strike me as a winner for exports.
garte 1y ago
Biden actually tried that and bringing the country forward at the same time. It didn't pass and Republicans decried it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_New_Deal Now they're going back 70 years instead of moving forward. Big brains there.
Applejinx 1y ago
I don't believe the actions being taken are really conducive to manufacturing greatness, or indeed technological greatness in any sense. I'd lump elimination of this board with elimination of obscure aviation safety committees normal people would never know about: actions that don't bear scrutiny at face value. i.e. perhaps the whole point is that breaking these things will do damage and lower the status and functionality of the United States, making it actively worse by a considerable amount and sabotaging key structural parts normal people wouldn't even know were there. In short, it's possible that it being bad is the point.

nerdsniper 1y ago

I wrote elsewhere: > Please note that the CSB is not an enforcement agency - they don’t assign fault or levee fines or bring any charges or write any regulation.

smadge 1y ago
What knowledge are you trying to impart with this fact? Do CSB recommendations inform policy? Do CSB recommendations get implemented? Do CSB recommendations when implemented increase safety?
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  I think if the goal is to “de-regulate”, there are other agencies that could be shut down instead. CSB provides all companies with the know-how to choose to prevent giant disasters. Shutting down this agency may be motivated by a desire to reduce regulation but it’s really counterproductive. Someone who is against regulation might still support the work of CSB because it assists the operations of any de-regulated industries.
rectang 1y ago
CSB investigations still represent an objective source of truth which competes with the PR that companies put out absolving themselves of blame in the event of any mishap. Removing the CSB frees up companies to "self-regulate" and blast out bogus framings.
- monkeyelite 1y ago
  > an objective source of truth An alternative source with different incentives and culture, not an objective one.
  - rectang 1y ago
    That's technically true but underplays the extent to which company self-enforcement PR is malicious nonsense at odds with reality. Companies are amoral piles of money which will do anything to become larger piles of money, and will resolutely resist any interpretation of events which harms their narrow self-interest.

heavyset_go 1y ago

> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. The effects are functionally the same, but I think the ideology and rhetoric behind then and now have changed. There really isn't a purportedly "principled" system of logic behind these decisions, in the past these decisions would be dressed in principled rhetoric no matter how heinous they realistically were. They aren't even bothering to dress it up in rhetoric that says there is something noble behind these decisions.

hedora 1y ago
The 1950’s were when the US set up many of the post war institutions that are being dismantled now. Maybe you mean the 1850’s? (Though I’d guess the government was probably more forward looking back then too.)
tehjoker 1y ago
The principle is the rate of profit is falling, competing countries are rising, and they want to unleash the private sector in the hopes of raising GDP growth significantly enough to retain hegemony. This won't work, because they're fucking stupid, and they'll damage the health of the population and the productivity of the land and waters going forward, but there is a logic to it.
- heavyset_go 1y ago
  I agree, I'm commenting on the outward justifications that are used to placate the public. In the past, a mountain of ideology and rhetoric would justify these decisions to the common person in an effort manufacture consent. They aren't even bothering to do that.
- atmavatar 1y ago
  It's more like the current administration and the billionaires behind them are acting like private equity. Now that they have control of the government, they'll dismantle anything they can and set us on a path to destruction to squeeze out every bit of value they can for themselves. Those most responsible are either betting they won't be around long enough to deal with the smouldering wreckage or planning to ditch before the country hits rock bottom.

spacecadet 1y ago

LOL Super-fund site? You mean private equity opportunity for a housing development!

throw0101c 1y ago

> I think this is pretty consistent with the old school 1950s views of the current administration. Companies can prioritize profits over people again. This is not from the 1950s, but from the 1970s, most famously (though others piled on after Friedman's (in)famous NYT letter): * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine In the mid-twentieth century corporate management's focus was more broad: > This view was shared not only by scholars but, surprisingly, by many corporate executives. In 1949 General Foods’ president Clarence Francis told Congress that he had a “three-way responsibility to the American consumer, to our associates in this business, and to the 68,000 [stockholders in General Foods]. We . . . would serve (the company’s) interests badly by shifting the fruits of the enterprise too heavily toward any one of those groups.” Two years later, the president of Standard Oil of New Jersey claimed that managers needed “to conduct the affairs of the enterprise in such a way as to maintain an equitable and working balance among the claims of the various directly interested groups—stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large.” So widespread were such views that, in 1959, one writer in the Harvard Business Review complained that it was no longer “fashionable for the corporation to take gleeful pride in making money.” Instead, he complained, it was typical “for the corporation to show that it is a great innovator; more specifically, a great public benefactor; and, very particularly, that it exists ‘to serve the public’.” > Even the law bent, at least a bit, toward this “social” view of corporate purpose. When the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld corporate charitable donations in its 1956 A.P. Smith Manufacturing Co. decision, it rested its judgment less on any benefit that would accrue to the company than on the belief that corporations had responsibilities beyond those owed to shareholders; corporations needed, the court held, to “acknowledge and discharge social as well as private responsibilities as members of the communities within which they operate.” * https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-history/ https://www2.law.temple.edu/10q/purpose-corporation-brief-hi... The fact that people do not know this history, and think that corporation and capitalism was 'always' about only making money, limits the options under discussions for fixing some of the social ills we are experiencing currently. Yes: corporations need to (at least) break even to survive, and ideally have some sort of return, but there are degrees to which they have to push to accomplish this. * https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2025/06/18/beyond-profit-maximization-how-economists-studied-corporate-social-responsibility-in-the-1950s-1970s/ https://beatricecherrier.wordpress.com/2025/06/18/beyond-pro... Some of the highest levels of economic growth (and its distribution to all) was done during times when shareholder primacy was not the main goal—though there were other factors, which may or may not be replicable, that helped with that growth: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_Growth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_and_Fall_of_American_...

12_throw_away 1y ago

> the old school 1950s views Hmmm, 1950s attitudes, hmm. What if we consider the hypothesis that the animus towards the CSB is for the absolute stupidest reasons possible? Here are the 3 current CSB board members [1-3]. [1] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-catherine-sandoval-/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-catherine-sandoval-... [2] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-sylvia-e-johnson-phd/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-sylvia-e-johnson-ph... [3] https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-steve-owens-/ https://www.csb.gov/members/board-member-steve-owens-/

rurban 1y ago

Just charge them with murder and those practices will stop.