Hacker News Reader

Comment by quasse | Hacker News Reader

It's really weird how, if there's one thing that a large majority of Americans seem to hate, it's forcing companies to take responsibility for negative externalities that they create by profiting off of something.

There seems to be basically no limit to how much damage the "America is open for business!!!" cheerleaders will support as long as

1. Someone is making a profit off of it.

2. It's happening in someone else's backyard (This one is sometimes optional, see the entire state of Louisiana [1] or flammable tap water in Pennsylvania and NY [2])

[1] https://iaspub.epa.gov/triexplorer/release_geography?region=...

[2] https://www.pnas.org/content/108/20/8172.abstract

View on HN

I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate. I think most people aren't remotely aware of the types of negative externalities caused by corporations because they struggle plenty in their day-to-day lives that they have no bandwidth to form an opinion about or, heck, even _learn about_ such things. Like if I ran a survey of random US citizens and asked "do you think a corporation, that through their own neglect did x damage to people/place/thing, should be made to pay for x damage?" I think the vast majority would respond "yes." I do agree that it's baffling that anyone would reply "no," but that is absolutely true and any number >0 in the no column is an indictment of us. And it's even more damning when elected officials in the US, the purported stewards of being informed, seem to be in the "no" camp. I'm tempted to say we've lost our way, but maybe we never had it to begin with.

Chomsky would say advertising companies have put a great deal of effort into intentionally directing people’s energy into consumption and away from everything else, including basic education about the world and one’s own level of contentment.

Blaming the individual is missing the forest for the trees IMHO.

Edit: phrasing.

Agreed. When the GP comment said

> they struggle plenty in their day-to-day lives that they have no bandwidth to form an opinion about or, heck, even _learn about_ such things

It reminded me of Chomsky's anecdote about listening to the radio and hearing random people calling into the station during a sports discussion program and arguing at length with paid experts, suggesting average people are perfectly capable of doing research and building nuanced opinions on complex topics, they just choose to do that for sports/cars/technology/consumption rather than politics. Or rather, are bombarded by marketing until they forget they can choose.

I don't know what Chomsky was listening too but IME talk back radio + sports is anything but nuanced and well reasoned, it's even more emotionally charged and driven by bias (particularly confirmation bias) than normal talk back. Blaming the coach even though there was a good performance with an ordinary team, blaming a key player for a loss because the screwed up at a key moment despite an overall great game, blaming a player for doing nothing despite drawing 2 defenders to let his team run riot, the complete inability to realize that bad games happen.

I'd rather read youtube comments than listen to sports talk back.

I think your observation actually strengthens the parent comment’s point that people are more capable than they realize in researching and holding opinions on the world. Political pundits you see on cable, for instance, have largely the same credibility as the rest of us. What makes them pundits is that they’re paid for their opinion.

Edit: rereading the comments I think you may not have been trying to be contrary at all—my apologies for implying you were.

I do think there's a difference between researching and holding an opinion and researching and holding an opinion that can be used to form accurate predictions about the future. I think that one of the things that's happening to us with social networks and such is that we're realizing that it is not always the case that more and freer information leads to better decisions. People have plenty of time and opportunity to do research now. They do not have the time and opportunity to learn to do good research.

I think in this case the point is that people are capable of doing research and knowing the facts, keeping up with an ever changing topic. Who's the coach, what are the key players, what happened at the last game, who's being transferred where, strengths and weaknesses of teams and individual players, etc.

It may very well be that the conclusions people reach starting from the facts are emotionally charged, but I'd say it's better than how it happens with politics at the moment: people start from ignorance or falsehoods, and then make emotionally charged conclusions based on that.

I don't have any numbers to support this, but I'd question whether "large majority" is accurate.

Yep. Here is some data:

76% of Americans say corporations have too much power https://openmarketsinstitute.org/blogs/76-americans-say-corp...

In 1950, 60% of Americans had a favorable opinion of big business. In 2017, that number is 21%. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/04/learnin...

IOW, the original poster is no longer an outsider when they rag on big business. They are in the overwhelming majority. They would have been an outsider in 1950, but not today.

This also goes in cycles. Teddy Roosevelt was wildly popular when he engaged in the busting up the hated Trusts. I think what we are seeing now is a return to that era, especially after all the outsourcing, low taxes paid, etc. It does seem like big business isn't really holding up its end of the social contract.

In fact, corporations have become such a boogeyman that everything is blamed on them. If you want to see true catastrophic environment devastation, take a look at Eastern Europe before the fall. It was horrific. Everyone knew -- back then -- that the west, with it's capitalism, had much cleaner air and took better care of nature than the socialist east. I often wondered about whether that was really true, or just one of those fashions that comes and goes.

What I think now is that what matters is power. The reason why the USSR and Eastern Europe were so awfully polluted compared to the U.S. and Western Europe was that when the state said "We need to increase steel production", then that's what they did and no one could stop them. They were absolutely single minded. They burned brown coal, dumped waste into lakes. No one could question them or stop them. Some bureaucrat said, "clear this forest" -- and it was cleared. That's why the air is unbreathable in China. Some well connected official said "Build a factory here" and they did, and no one can sue them or even challenge them.

Today, the situation is different in the west. The air is cleaner, the water is cleaner. The most polluted areas would be the overpopulated areas of China and India. 90% of the plastics flowing into the ocean come from 10 rivers in China and India. These are the places with the worst air quality. 1/3 of San Francisco's air pollution comes from China. I think, before that can really change, you'll need to empower local citizens to sue and demand improved conditions. It may be hard to sue a corporation, but it's even harder to sue a state owned enterprise, or the state as well. Empowering the individual is key. Here in the west, a bit of anti-trust would help, IMO. Make these beasts smaller and less powerful.

Surveys are one thing. Votes are another. Voters have consistently voted to put oil companies in the highest seats of power for decades, because they are "pro-business".

Don't confuse people with industries. Sure, people who worked in Oil and Gas got elected -- Bush Sr. is the most recent one. People who also worked in media got elected -- Reagan.

You are going to elect a person from some industry, after all, unless you plan to elect someone with no skills or employment history. The time of electing generals like Eisenhower is past.

But the fact that, say, people elected Trump has nothing to do with people really favoring the real estate industry -- that's a very odd interpretation of what elections signify, and does not refute the survey data about people's opinions of Big Business.

I am sorry that you are not party of the enlightened minority, but a normal person would be happy that the vast majority of the public share one of their beliefs, so maybe be thankful. Alternately, you can adopt a new minority belief if needed.

It's really inconvenient to be the guy that has to tell 1000 partiers to turn down the music. If the rest of the neighborhood actually came together and told the guy how much support he has, he would be more confident and be able to make change happen - make the music stop. In our age of 15 minutes for any topic - the support just doesn't really exist.

For me personally nothing sums up our collective lack of accomplishing anything moreso than Kony 2012 [1].

So when it comes to affecting change that goes against the grain, I'm just not really all that surprised anymore.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kony_2012

You are 100% right and it has baffled me ever since I noticed it. Anyone have a hypothesis as to why this happens/is happening?

Because there is no social safety net. If you don't have a job you have to live on the street. Companies have the jobs. When the alternative is seen as living on the street, Americans see these issues with fear for their immediate well being. The environment being destroyed is a far-ish off problem. To many Americans, homeless could be a month or two of joblessness away.

What are you talking about?

EITC, SNAP, Section 8 housing, SSI, TANF, WIC, Medicaid, etc.

This site estimates over $700 billion per year spent on these programs: http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

The question is about the quality of life people have when they are on such programs.

Also, it's not about how much is spent but how much people actually get. I read somewhere not too long ago that if you divided the amount of money spend on welfare programs by the number of recipients a family of three would be getting $60,000 a year. This is not the case. Welfare administration eats up the difference.

I just pointed out that $700 billion isn't nothing.

I'm well aware of the myriad of flaws in the existing programs. I certainly wasn't claiming that the $700 billion was being spent wisely but apparently that is what a number of people assumed.

Do you have any numbers to back that last sentence up? I suspect the difference between your figure and intuition is less welfare administration bloat and more that most of it is eaten up by exorbitant healthcare costs through Medicare and Medicaid.

Have you ever been on those programs? I have... what few actually accepted me.

Unemployment - Screwed around and "lost" the request in the system. I didn't have unemployment, which I am forced to pay into, for 8 weeks. Good thing I was able to get food stamps. I spent most of the time online leeching free internet, since I couldn't afford gas to drive aimlessly to places that would say 'apply online' anyways.

EITC - Once a year, during tax season. Not much of a help.

SNAP - food stamps. Yes, I was on them back in 2012 when I couldn't get any jobs. It meant that I had food.

Section 8 housing - 2 year wait minimum. I put my name on the list, and was summarily told of the homeless shelters.

SSI - I tried for disability, because my right arm is permanently injured. Rejected. Rejected. Rejected. All over a course of 8 months.

TANF - I have no children. Doesn't apply.

WIC - Women, infants, children. I'm none of those, and have no children.

Medicaid - Tried and was refused. Told to apply to HIP Healthy Indiana Plan. Wanted $$$$.

--------------------------------------------

Long story short. In the US, if you aren't independently wealthy, and you lose your job, you're pretty much fucked. You'll lose your residence, cant afford gas for too much transportation, lose needed services to regain a job, your health benefits, and more.

The "social net" really isn't, except for the worst of the worst. My wife cares for them as in-home non-medical care. And then, they're on the skin of their teeth, with even a $10/mo raise in a bill causing less food budget. It terrorized many section8 housing people with the earlier shutdown precisely because the fed cuts the check to the state who cuts to the landlord. With no fed money, rents weren't being paid...

I just pointed out that $700 billion isn't nothing.

I'm well aware of the myriad of flaws in the existing programs. I certainly wasn't claiming that the $700 billion was being spent wisely but apparently that is what a number of people assumed.

A couple of nice ropes aren't a net, not matter how much you spend on them.

Not quite the same as knowing you still can have decent health care if you are unemployed.

Sure, but I wasn't making any claims about healthcare. I was just stating the obvious that we spent lots of money on a safety net.

Ironic that people seem to think that those programs are worthless, but I gather want to arrange for a lot more money to be distributed by the same organization that can't seem to do anything useful with the money it is already distributing.

I'm not a fan of the affordable care act, but it seems completely obvious to me that we need to decouple health insurance from employment. I really don't understand why that wasn't a key element of health care reform.

What on Earth are you talking about? Social services are massively underfunded, despite getting a lot of funding, because the need is gigantic.

Quite a lot of that funding is just compensating for some of centuries of theft, from slaveowners of the 19th century to predatory rural banks of the 20th Century to coordinated corporate wage depression of the 21st century.

There are real social problems that need solving but framing the situation as the result of "theft" is a mischaracterization. Theft would be an "easy" situation to resolve, just give the money back. In any case, I don't think simply transferring money solves these types of problems -- it is much more difficult than that.

The organizations that support this position, such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, AEI, Heritage Foundation, Heartland, Federalist Society, State Policy Network, Hudson Institute, Accuracy in Media, etc in aggregate have many billions in annual funding. Their only real goal is to sell that position to the American public.

It's not like groups on the other side, such as Sea Shepherd, which has actual giant boats sailing around the world to combat whaling or ASPCA which operates hospitals, shelters, has large stocks of medicine, a staff of veterinarians, 24-hour crisis lines, etc.

The business groups don't really do anything other than spinning and framing things to persuade the public. It's not like they're operating say, shelters for downtrodden wayward billionaires. All their money goes into campaigns for the public perception.

Besides, it's not surprising that organizations who defend wealth and property rights have out-sized power and influence in a world where legislation has made wealth and property rights the primary source of power and influence.

That's why structuring and understanding how rights, responsibilities and privileges are allocated in a society is really important.

Hangover from the cold war is my guess. The US is at the extreme compared to other western democracies on a lot of the old cold war battle lines regarding governments role in everyday life. Some examples include the generally pro private business environment and our objection to a greater social safety net including public healthcare.

Another side effect of the cold war - apathy. If the human race is going to nuke itself soon, anyway, what's the point doing things the right way, especially if that may make gas or food x% more expensive.

The fear of Armageddon is less now, but the defense mechanism takes far longer to wear off.

But the big swing to environmental protection happened right in the middle of the cold war.

The companies that profit from exploiting public resources and leaving pollution behind have the money to pay for propaganda.

I think the public backlash against BP was tremendous. The HBO documentary in 2016 was very popular, six years after the incident occurred.

Tremendous? A congressman even apologized to BP for people saying they were unhappy with the company, and the company's fines had both no effect on their business and did not compensate for even the economic loss of the people in the area.

I thought the opposite from outside the US - I thought the US lambasted (rightfully) BP which caused BP to almost go out of business - they had asset sales at the time to pay for the costs.

There were pension liquidity fears at the time due to the costs that it needed to pay. BP provides a large percentage of dividend payments on the the London Stock Exchange which pension funds rely on for paying out pensions.

The wikipedia page is quite clear on how much BP paid in damages and they were not insignificant - $42Billion had been paid into a trust fund.

To say no effect is incorrect.

Glad to see Joe Barton dishonorably not to go for reelection[0]. [0] https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/30/politics/joe-barton-re-electi...

Weren’t there some $5B ordered for civil penalties?

I worked in Houston just after the spill and heard BP was in shambles at the time.

> Weren’t there some $5B ordered for civil penalties?

Weren't there some $63B in cleanup efforts?

The fines were in addition to the cost that BP bore for cleaning up. Most of that $63B was paid by BP, in addition to all the fines.

Often we have a “backlash” but they lead to no real consequences probably because we feel so disenfranchised.

Once something bad happens the public kind of already knows there will be a fine but none of the board/shareholders will ever really be held responsible.

> I think the public backlash against BP was tremendous.

I do wonder if the backlash would've been less if it was an American company though. Or at least a less obviously "foreign" company. There did seem to also be plenty of blame to go around with local contractors etc, but they seem to have escaped the backlash - or at least had a public narrative absolving them.

There was a backlash but no real consequences (the fine was pretty low compared to the cost of the cleanup). Same for Equifax. Just sit it out and it will be forgotten quickly.

"Negative externality" is a word meaning that something valuable is destroyed but it's no one's private property.

If it were property, it could have a price, and compensation of damage to it could be sought. But not everything is easy to price in a market: e.g. a national park.

Anyway, if damage is real, or a risk is real, a court could look at it. If not people themselves, an insurance company could, in some cases.

I am confused. What does your first link refer specifically to Louisiana?

Louisiana is #5 in the nation on the EPA's Toxics Release Inventory (despite being 31st in the nation by size).

A freak storm hits your house. Crap flies for miles around, including every single material used to build your house and everything in your house.

How much are YOU going to pay ME because of “negative externalities”?

Seriously, your comment is incendiary by making Americans look like greedy monsters.

Your house is not a business and doesn't pay out large profits every month by taking large risks that can be mitigated.

> Seriously, your comment is incendiary by making Americans look like greedy monsters.

The people involved in these decisions, and in supporting them, look like greedy monsters because that's precisely what they are. That, or ignorant stooges.

FTA:

“Hurricane Ivan caused 80-foot waves that led to the walls of the canyon giving way, resulting in a mudslide that chopped down Taylor Energy’s oil platform in 2004. The event buried the broken wells under more than 100 feet of sediment.”

So, you’re smart enough to mitigate not one, but multiple 80-foot waves AND determine that the waves will cause a landslide a full 20 years AFTER you put it into production? Damn, you’re fucking brilliant - which Nobel prize winner are you?

Think before you type up a comment like that.

Thanks for implicitly conceding the point about the house analogy being inapplicable.

Also FTA:

> the study said a similar event happened during Hurricane Camille in 1969. Eleven years later, a report commissioned by the Interior Department identified areas in the gulf that were susceptible to mudslides. Mississippi Canyon 20, the site of Taylor Energy’s platform, was one of those areas.

That was years before construction of the Taylor Energy MC-20 platform began.

So, no "brilliance" is needed, just paying attention to the known information about the area, which any responsible oil company should be doing.

Taylor Energy clearly doesn't fit that category, because it hid this oil spill for six years, tried to clean it up secretly, and once discovered, repeatedly lied about the extent of the spill.

If you needed more evidence of the "greedy monster" characterization, that's it right there.

As I said, "the people involved in these decisions, and in supporting them, look like greedy monsters because that's precisely what they are. That, or ignorant stooges."

> Think before you type up a comment like that.

I'm curious what's motivating you to support such unacceptable behavior. Perhaps you react badly to the "monster" characterization because you feel attacked by it? If so, you might want to start listening to that voice of conscience, for your own mental health.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com