Auto-SummaryThe post discusses the balance between business responsibility and consumer choice, particularly in regard to health and environmental concerns. While businesses have a responsibility to inform customers about potential health risks, ultimately, consumers have the right to make informed decisions about their own health. The cost of producing goods that are healthier or more environmentally friendly can be a challenge for businesses, especially those catering to lower-income consumers. Government subsidies and policies can influence the cost of goods, and businesses must consider factors beyond just profit, such as efficiency and sustainability. The post also touches on the interconnection between government and business, with an emphasis on the need for profit to maintain a business and the role of fiat currency in the economy.
kaiowas said: "So what? People still make an informed decision to eat there, knowing that it isn't good for them. Not everyone wants to eat tofu and soy beans all the time."
informed decision or not, I think business should be responsible for the health of their customers, I'm talking about compassion here. the idea here is that money is the bottom line, and that's wrong. I know they are in business to make money, I understand that, but let me ask you this; how many products have been out there that the public has used which later on down the road caused major health problems? many have.
If a business knowingly puts a harmful product on the market without informing the public, then that's tantamount to fraud. However, if they put a product on the market whose dangers are known by the customers, who choose to consume it anyway, that's their choice, and none of your business.
Quote: "Because some people can't afford to get the good stuff all the time. Thanks to the urban sprawl that's affected so many cities in America, the poor often have the biggest commutes, and if they have to get the most expensive shit there is, that's cutting into what's already just barely enough salary to get by."
thats the thing, just make the good shit. in california we have all these pollution laws which makes the tax on our gas even greater, yet there's still cheap gas which totally undermines the purpose of the tax in the first place. no compassion for the environment.
Sometimes compassion for the environment and compassion for the poor need to be weighed against one another.
Quote: "You can thank our farm subsidies for that. The government basically pays farmers not to grow more than a certain amount of crops in order to keep prices artificially high."
and you think that the government and business is seperate?
Not as much as they should be, but there are still clear distinctions between them.
Quote: "No one's twisting your arm here. The law requires them to provide a warning label, and there are plenty of other products you can choose from. Or you can just suck it up and learn to deal with that headache, you pussy."
whats with the name calling? I never said that business is twisting my arm. so much money is spent on making these products that create more problems then solve, not very efficient huh?
Sorry, I should've put a smiley after that to indicate light-hearted joking. If a product creates more problems than it solves, then the consumer can make an informed choice not to buy that product. Simple as that. It's called free will.
Quote: "Again, that's government, not business."
I think the lumber industry is a business. and you still think governemnt and business aren't interlinked?
Of course they're linked, but they're not one in the same. Sure, some business lobbies exert an alarming amount of influence on government policy, but the point is that the blame lies primarily on government here, not business.
Quote: "I'm sorry, but cost-efficiency is a factor businesses need to consider. They can't afford to keep suffering net losses just to try and be socially responsible."
damn right they should be socially responsible. they don't even care that the fuel source is a bi-product which takes years and years to reproduce. with great power comes great responsibility.
huh?
Quote: "The examples you cited are either cases where people have a choice, or cases of government intervention. I do agree with the sentiment that just because you're a business doesn't absolve you of responsibility for your actions, but I see nothing wrong with offering people options. And we need to be realistic about money here. Don't just roll your eyes at the notion that businesses need to make a profit. That's typical anti-capitalist rhetoric spouted by people with no understanding of business or economics. Profit is necessary to maintain a business. They need to compete in the market, and in order to remain competitive, you need to minimize costs while maximizing efficiency. "
I udnerstand that, but effeciency on one side causes much havoc and desrtuction on the other.
It doesn't have to be that way. Government intervention often creates this conflict of interest where there otherwise might not be one.
Quote: and lets be realitic about money here paradigm, it's fake. you can't trade money for gold bullion which totally makes it useless. you say its about supply and demand, if that's so, then why are we in debt?
I'm not here to debate our current monetary policy. We're stuck with fiat currency for the time being, so that's the model that business is going to operate under. They can't just operate under a new system without getting the government to change it for you. And the reason the government's in debt is because it keeps borrowing money from the Federal Reserve. I fail to see how that is relevant to supply and demand. Nor do I see why money which can't be exchanged for gold(not true, btw--you can still buy gold, just like any other commodity) is necessarily "fake" or "useless."
--------------------
|