• Sludgehammer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    57·
    5 hours 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?”

  • sbbq@lemmy.zip
    29·
    5 hours 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
      8·
      4 hours 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.xyzEnglish
        2·
        2 hours 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.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        1·
        3 hours ago

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

  • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    315·
    5 hours ago

    Because thats not what self regulation means?

    Self regulation means that the correct ammount of products will be made and distributed, as making too much leads to losing money, and too little to not realizing the potential of the investment.

    Other than that, you are not talking about the same sense of the word regulation.

    • Supamanc@sopuli.xyz
      14·
      4 hours ago

      You’re mistaken, in this context it is when an industry or sector lobbies against governments regulating them, on the basis that’s it’s too complicated or expensive, and argues that they can do a better job themselves.

    • devedeset@lemmy.zip
      4·
      3 hours ago

      You’re incorrect here, self regulation in this context means letting the individual industries try to follow all sorts of laws/regulations on their own. For example, Boeing was allowed to self-regulate for some time (and they probably still are to some degree) meaning the FAA and other relevant government agencies were not doing things like inspections - they left a lot of it up to Boeing. Then Boeing had two 737 MAX crashes due to MCAS and a door panel blow off near Portland, OR

    • trxxruraxvr@lemmy.world
      10·
      4 hours ago

      So what you’re saying is, you’re talking about another meaning of self regulation than the meme.

      Why are you doing that?

      • ChilledPeppers@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        26·
        4 hours ago

        Because no reasonable person who defends the free market and self regulation would use it in that manner, and for that reason this becomes very strawman-y.

        • huey_m@piefed.socialEnglish
          3·
          2 hours ago

          Says who? I’ve certainly argued with many that would use it in exactly that sense. They argue things like the FDA and EPA aren’t necessary because markets will self regulate due to losing customers if their actions are antithetical to what society wants (I’ve seen the same argument regarding why civil rights wasn’t necessary and that the market would drive racists out of business, despite years of… that not happening).

          Definitely arguable whether libertarians are reasonable or not, but they absolutely do use it in this way. I know because I both argue with them and unfortunately I’m a recovering libertarian myself.