• LazyOldPervert@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    20 hours ago

    It’s almost like telling an industry they can self regulate is the same thing as telling an 8th grader there are no consequences for a day.

    Weird huh?

  • Sludgehammer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    1 day ago

    The funny thing about Love Canal is that the Hooker Chemical was complying with the (entirely inadequate) environmental regulations of the day. While the containment was terrible, there was at least some containment of the toxic waste.

    Then the Niagra Falls school board was like, “Hey that ‘Love Canal’ property you’ve got would be a great place for a new school” and Hooker chemical was like “No, that’s a terrible idea”. So the school board threatened to sue and just seize the land and Hooker chemical basically said “Okay, we’ll sell it to you for one dollar, on the condition that you don’t disturb the toxic waste and anything that goes wrong is on you”. Then the school board immediately bulldozed the land cutting open the clay containing the toxic waste turning a huge problem into a catastrophic problem.

    Don’t get me wrong, Hooker was absolutely at fault, but IMO the school board is more to blame. It’s kinda like asking “Who do you blame, the guys who laid down a minefield, or the guys who decided to have a Riverdance jamboree on the site despite the warning signs?”

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    I grew up next to the Cuyahoga in the 1970s. It wasn’t the part that caught fire (which was in Cleveland) but I have no idea why not. The river was chock full of old tires, rusting oil and chemical barrels, and there was a sheen of oil (or god knows what) over everything. All the industries in the town along the river (which included and still includes the factory that makes that green foam shit florists stick flowers in) had giant pipes that emptied all their shit right into the river. People still used to fish there, which is just mind-boggling.

      • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        20 hours ago

        They were on HBO in the early '90s. They were basically Monty Python a generation later, and I don’t mean that as a slight in any way.

        • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Funny I just watched the Kids in the Hall documentary the other day and they talk about Monty Python, but not SCTV at all, even saying that there was no sketch comedy between MP and KITH.

          Like… wut?

          • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            16 hours ago

            even saying that there was no sketch comedy between MP and KITH

            Jesus, that’s pretty out there. They’re also skipping SNL, which while historically very uneven, was definitely sketch comedy.

  • sbbq@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    1 day ago

    Any attempt to allow publicly traded companies to self regulate is obviously going to lead to this. They’re literally required to take every step to maximize gains and minimize losses. They will fire any CEO that won’t. Remove the rails and you are knowingly giving them license to rape and pillage at will.

    • StaticFalconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      Technically they dont have to. If the board actually agrees the goal isnt to min/max finance and have the goal be the best whatever, then thats the result. But until that becomes a bigger selling point for investors (the public), we are going to get the bottom financial line still.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        Okay, but then line goes down and investors vote out the board.

        And most stocks are held by a couple big Wall Street firms who own everything, not the public at large.

      • Signtist@bookwyr.me
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        That’s like saying that technically you can drive your car into a lake; nobody’s going to do it except by accident. Investors invest solely and specifically to get a return on their investment, regardless of what they might say their reason was. They want as big of a return as quickly as possible, and will make whatever changes they need to in order to make that happen. They don’t even think hard enough to find other more ethical avenues that might not destroy the world if they don’t give as big of a return that destroying the world would give.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        And technically never happens because investors like money and want money (After all, why they would invest otherwise?)

        • darthelmet@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 day ago

          I think it’s more accurate to look at it as the same kind of survivorship bias as the companies themselves. Investors aren’t voters or politicians, they’re pools of capital. The bigger the pool, the more sway they have over things. If an investor were to consistently vote in such a way that did not maximize their returns, their pool of capital would shrink relative to those who do. Thus over time, the most influential investors will be the selfish ones and the less greedy ones will be naturally pushed out.

          Thinking about it terms of them “wanting more money” makes it seem like they are a static entity with opinions and if only we could get better ones things would be ok. It ignores the way in which capitalism is a process that produces the outcomes we see. It’s an inevitability that an economy run on these principles will turn out this way.

    • Bieren@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 day ago

      It’s like people forget that a companies legal responsibility is to the shareholders. Not the customers. Not the employees. Not to anyone but the shareholders.

    • FishFace@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 day ago

      All the CEO has to do is say, “I think knowingly causing a disaster is going to be bad for business long term”.