To be fair, I think one could argue with a straight face that if we’re still buying the products, then we really don’t care that much. Why should a company be motivated by morality if we as a society collectively aren’t?
We should hold ourselves to the same standards or we’re just hypocrites.
If the only fridges on the market contain CFCs then people are going to buy them because they need fridges. If the only CFC-free fridges are more expensive than CFC ones then only affluent people, at most, are going to buy them.
It’s called a market failure: There are costs associated with a product that are not taken into account because the regulatory regime doesn’t make sure they are. In the case of CFCs we went even further than making fridge producers pay up for the externalities they cause (which would’ve been an astronomical sum) and right-out banned that stuff. The consumer, after all, is still saving money with CFC fridges (their food doesn’t spoil as easily), they’re not paying for the ozone hole, either.
See the free market is a theoretical model, it indeed promises prefect results given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths makes sense. Perfect rationality and information don’t exist in the real world, though (and in fact ads and company secrets exist to degrade the information available to everyone) so we need regulations to fix market failures so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating the free market. Misunderstanding of this point brought to you by peddlers of institutionalised market failure equivocating “free market” and “unregulated market”.
The EU tends to have a good grasp on it, the US, boy oh boy.
In principle I’m inclined to agree, however isn’t this glossing over the degree to which markets are consolidated?
You try to opt out of products/services and choose more ethical alternatives, but it turns out the most readily available alternatives are in some way connected to the same unethical parent company. Ultimately the individualistic approach to addressing these matters is untenable and requires collective action in some form (ideally it would be leveraging a government that reflects the interests of the people).
And those companies have spent a ton of time and effort discouraging and preventing people from collectivizing via union busting. There’s a huge power asymmetry at play here, an individual should not be held to the same standard of accountability as the people who literally control the economy through non-democratic or straight up unelected positions of leadership (board of investors or private CEOs respectively). They can, at any moment, choose to reduce their profit margin for the betterment of the planet - but they don’t, because as a small group of owners, they exist to profit so they would never agree to do so in a meaningful way*. And because they’re collectivised and we’re not (just look at the swathe of antitrust cases where businesses that are supposed to compete, have instead chosen to act like a cartel), they hold almost all the power. Let’s focus our attention away from blaming the average person, and onto the real root cause so that we can actually collectivise against that root cause rather than fight amongst each other.
*: without the state straight up socialising their risk, for example the green tech grants and loans we have been and are giving out, all over the world. Something Elon Musk is very familiar with, given that Tesla might not have existed today without the generous $465 million government loan they got in 2009.
“Opting out” doesn’t mean you “opt in” to whatever forced you to “opt out” to begin with.
If I give you a choice between being punched in the face or getting kicked in the crotch, it’s not moral acquiescence to either regardless which you choose.
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Consider: “if you oppose slavery, just don’t buy slaves, and we’ll let the market sort out who’s right and wrong”
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Meaning this genuinely, not in a snarky way: did you read to the end of my comment? My phrasing may have been poor or a tad wordy, but I recognize what you’re describing and advise collective, political action instead of voting with one’s wallet.
The parenthetical at the end wasn’t to suggest otherwise, only that doing so via one’s existing/current government may not be a readily available option, demanding one change their government so as to make it work to those ends. I should have been clearer on that point.
I think what you’re saying is either inaccurate or excessively vague. Many ultra rich people got money by inheriting it, through the stock market, and to a much lesser degree, through government spending programs.
The way you framed the issue is a classic one, and it’s essentially blaming us, the consumers, for creating the problem that we are facing. First of all, that would simply be inaccurate because there are many causes, and second of all, it doesn’t really matter who you blame. The question is how we can fix the broken situation.
Not really. They said consumption AND labor. Stocks are capital, and their profits come from underpaying workers for the value they produce through labor. Inherited wealth is also acquired through and stored in capital.
In addition, the government is an essential part of capitalism, as it protects owned property more economically than the private armies of feudalism. Government spending programs that give the rich money are paid for by political donations, but the actual profitability is hard to quantify.
I love how you protest blaming consumers and then in the next sentence say “it doesn’t matter who you blame”. The answer to “how we can fix the broken situation” starts with identifying the problem (AKA laying blame).
In reality, there is no shortage of people to blame. You can blame the corporations, the stock market, politicians, nepotism, capitalism AND consumers, and none of that would be wrong. The only wrong thing to do is to remove blame from any of them.
blame, responsibility, and the ability to do something are three interrelated but distinct concepts. the ability to force bad actors to change by refusing to reward them for bad actions does not put the blame on us for failure to do so. If you forget to lock your front door and someone robs you, there was something you could have done to prevent the robbery but only the thief carries the blame.
Tesla batteries and modular car battery charging systems incoming, they’re not going to give up their market foothold so easily now that they’ve got their foot in the door.
These people have money for blood, what makes you think their ethics are any different? I don’t care what sets the face eating leopards off so long as they get to eating faces.
I don’t expect people making bank to have many ethical concerns, tbh.
“It’s just one small thing. Besides, there are many other things to complain about!” said every investor tied to everything people complain about, probably.
There you go. It was all OK until it impacted $$. Glad they finally did something, but wish it would have been based on an actual ethical concern.
this is one of the few levers of power we have. remember that every nickel they have comes from us working and us buying.
Free market morality.
To be fair, I think one could argue with a straight face that if we’re still buying the products, then we really don’t care that much. Why should a company be motivated by morality if we as a society collectively aren’t?
We should hold ourselves to the same standards or we’re just hypocrites.
If the only fridges on the market contain CFCs then people are going to buy them because they need fridges. If the only CFC-free fridges are more expensive than CFC ones then only affluent people, at most, are going to buy them.
It’s called a market failure: There are costs associated with a product that are not taken into account because the regulatory regime doesn’t make sure they are. In the case of CFCs we went even further than making fridge producers pay up for the externalities they cause (which would’ve been an astronomical sum) and right-out banned that stuff. The consumer, after all, is still saving money with CFC fridges (their food doesn’t spoil as easily), they’re not paying for the ozone hole, either.
See the free market is a theoretical model, it indeed promises prefect results given that all actors are perfectly rational and act on perfect information, the maths makes sense. Perfect rationality and information don’t exist in the real world, though (and in fact ads and company secrets exist to degrade the information available to everyone) so we need regulations to fix market failures so that the real-world market comes closer to approximating the free market. Misunderstanding of this point brought to you by peddlers of institutionalised market failure equivocating “free market” and “unregulated market”.
The EU tends to have a good grasp on it, the US, boy oh boy.
In principle I’m inclined to agree, however isn’t this glossing over the degree to which markets are consolidated?
You try to opt out of products/services and choose more ethical alternatives, but it turns out the most readily available alternatives are in some way connected to the same unethical parent company. Ultimately the individualistic approach to addressing these matters is untenable and requires collective action in some form (ideally it would be leveraging a government that reflects the interests of the people).
And those companies have spent a ton of time and effort discouraging and preventing people from collectivizing via union busting. There’s a huge power asymmetry at play here, an individual should not be held to the same standard of accountability as the people who literally control the economy through non-democratic or straight up unelected positions of leadership (board of investors or private CEOs respectively). They can, at any moment, choose to reduce their profit margin for the betterment of the planet - but they don’t, because as a small group of owners, they exist to profit so they would never agree to do so in a meaningful way*. And because they’re collectivised and we’re not (just look at the swathe of antitrust cases where businesses that are supposed to compete, have instead chosen to act like a cartel), they hold almost all the power. Let’s focus our attention away from blaming the average person, and onto the real root cause so that we can actually collectivise against that root cause rather than fight amongst each other.
*: without the state straight up socialising their risk, for example the green tech grants and loans we have been and are giving out, all over the world. Something Elon Musk is very familiar with, given that Tesla might not have existed today without the generous $465 million government loan they got in 2009.
“Opting out” doesn’t mean you “opt in” to whatever forced you to “opt out” to begin with.
If I give you a choice between being punched in the face or getting kicked in the crotch, it’s not moral acquiescence to either regardless which you choose.
Your argument rests on a fallacy- “vote with your wallet”. This presumes that we don’t vote with our voice anymore, so it supersedes a democratic system of governance.
Consider: “if you oppose slavery, just don’t buy slaves, and we’ll let the market sort out who’s right and wrong”
Meaning this genuinely, not in a snarky way: did you read to the end of my comment? My phrasing may have been poor or a tad wordy, but I recognize what you’re describing and advise collective, political action instead of voting with one’s wallet.
The parenthetical at the end wasn’t to suggest otherwise, only that doing so via one’s existing/current government may not be a readily available option, demanding one change their government so as to make it work to those ends. I should have been clearer on that point.
No, I don’t think you could, because you don’t really have a choice.
I find this naive cynicism exasperating.
“Let’s improve society somewhat.”
“Yet, you partake in society! Curious! / sent from my iPhone”
Sent from graphene but sure
Supply side ethics
I think what you’re saying is either inaccurate or excessively vague. Many ultra rich people got money by inheriting it, through the stock market, and to a much lesser degree, through government spending programs.
The way you framed the issue is a classic one, and it’s essentially blaming us, the consumers, for creating the problem that we are facing. First of all, that would simply be inaccurate because there are many causes, and second of all, it doesn’t really matter who you blame. The question is how we can fix the broken situation.
Not really. They said consumption AND labor. Stocks are capital, and their profits come from underpaying workers for the value they produce through labor. Inherited wealth is also acquired through and stored in capital.
In addition, the government is an essential part of capitalism, as it protects owned property more economically than the private armies of feudalism. Government spending programs that give the rich money are paid for by political donations, but the actual profitability is hard to quantify.
I love how you protest blaming consumers and then in the next sentence say “it doesn’t matter who you blame”. The answer to “how we can fix the broken situation” starts with identifying the problem (AKA laying blame).
In reality, there is no shortage of people to blame. You can blame the corporations, the stock market, politicians, nepotism, capitalism AND consumers, and none of that would be wrong. The only wrong thing to do is to remove blame from any of them.
blame, responsibility, and the ability to do something are three interrelated but distinct concepts. the ability to force bad actors to change by refusing to reward them for bad actions does not put the blame on us for failure to do so. If you forget to lock your front door and someone robs you, there was something you could have done to prevent the robbery but only the thief carries the blame.
Tesla batteries and modular car battery charging systems incoming, they’re not going to give up their market foothold so easily now that they’ve got their foot in the door.
These people have money for blood, what makes you think their ethics are any different? I don’t care what sets the face eating leopards off so long as they get to eating faces.
I don’t expect people making bank to have many ethical concerns, tbh.
“It’s just one small thing. Besides, there are many other things to complain about!” said every investor tied to everything people complain about, probably.
Expecting investors to behave ethically instead of in their financial interest? I see you’re feeling bold today
Ethical concerns are not in line with corporate ethics.
This is capitalism. There is no place for “actual ethical concern.”