Yet another example proving that no corporation considers the interests of the public in any way. I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.
This statement sort of clearly false and hyperbolic. Why would you make it?
> I'm baffled that anyone can argue for unfettered free market capitalism with such a bevy of evidence against it.
This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question. If you can't understand a position well enough to see why someone would support it, then you don't understand the position well enough to reject it.
Name a publicly traded for-profit corporation that exists to serve the public.
At best it's a disregard for the public. You can see it in non-political stories on HN. What percentage of companies have been meaningfully punished by a data breach?
>This is a pretty clear sign to me that you don't understand the argument in question.
I very specifically meant "unfettered free market capitalism" and I could have been more clear. It's the end result of many more popular policies seeking to strip regulations for the sake of making things "more efficient". The fight is obviously about the extent of regulatory removal but "removal of all regulations" is an idea seriously proposed by many. I don't see how our current system needs fewer regulations, especially at a time when corporations are growing through mergers and acquisitions, data is collected and shared more widely, and therefore fewer companies have the ability to affect more individuals.
Look at a sibling comment to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18685351
>Consumers will obviously avoid J&J baby powder products and switch to a competitor’s baby powder product.
This is exactly the sort of case where the "invisible hand" has failed. Sometimes it's invisible because it's not there.
A sample timeline:
1: J&J discovers asbestos in talc products
2: J&J covers it up
3: Consumers, none the wiser, continue using talc products
4: X consumers contract cancer and die too early, fracturing families and causing unknowable amounts of economic damage in the form of lost productivity
5: Decades later, Reuters publishes report
6: Consumers avoid J&J talc products, shareholders lose some money, possible lawsuits
Is dying a fair cost to inform others about the danger of a product you're using?
Is loss of market value, lawsuit settlements, and regulatory fines a fair consequence for the person who is no longer living?
If a company can cover up health effects, let a bunch of people die, deny everything, and eventually pay some money, is that the market working as intended? What about the people who are dead now, is that money helpful for them?
I don't think we can ever fully trust "the market" to prevent this kind of thing from happening, because companies have no reason to ever admit to wrongdoing that will affect their bottom line, even if lives have been lost. The only time a company will admit wrongdoing, is when the cost of dealing with it publicly is less than the cost of covering it up and possible future liability.
Case-in-point: https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-b...
We could have laws that require compounds created to be used by non-expert end-users, whether for food, topical application, or otherwise, to be tested extensively for long-term health effects before they can be sold. This would be a cost to the manufacturers, but what is the value of a life? How much profit would you allow a company to save in order to kill you with a tainted product?