[gwright]

Right, because nationalized industries/companies have a wonderful track record of environmental concern and practices?

I'm not sure what the solution is to these problems (or this particular problem) but "nationalizing" producers certainly isn't one of them. Destroying 3M isn't one either.

I don't understand the approach to difficult problems that starts with thinking "the government" is effectively a magic wand.

[NickC25]

I'm not saying nationalized companies are great. I'm saying that if a company engages in such deceptive practices with materials that they know are toxic, and they fail to disclose that to the relevant parties (the government, and the people), they have no business being in business, as they are effectively externalizing the risk their products put on the rest of us.

Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it. Otherwise, you're going to just encourage more of this behavior...because the flip side is a really ugly precedent to set.

You want companies to use toxic chemicals in their products, lie about it, and when found out, just pay some fine and walk away like nothing happened?

No, there has to be a line where we say "you made a ton of money by lying to us and putting toxic chemicals in our air, our water, and our bodies. you're going to now pay that back with substantial interest, and be barred from ever being in a position of any level of corporate power whatsoever for the rest of your life". The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again.

In countries like China, executives get disappeared for such hubris.

[youreincorrect]

> Destroying the company is not the best idea, but there has to be a line society has to draw and be vigilant about defending it.

Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt. Let companies that did not go under for such awful practices pick up the pieces. Why is bankruptcy acceptable for Kmart but not 3M? Be specific, no nonsense about how they are the only company in existence ever capable of creating some mysterious chemical yet also only have a $50B market capitalization (if their chemicals were so rare, impossible to produce, and highly sought after, market cap would be higher).

> The taxpayer CAN NOT be the one to be on the hook for corporate misdeeds time and time again.

I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public.

I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

[justrealist]

The US government cannot and should not run a chemical company. It's a dumb idea.

You're just throwing around the word "nationalize" because it feels empowering and edgy, not because it solves any problems.

[youreincorrect]

Nowhere am I suggesting they should nationalize it. Reread the comment.

[NickC25]

Thanks for taking my points in good faith - others have not done the same (or to your points either). Upvoted.

>Why is it not the best idea? It's a great idea. Fine them more money and let them go bankrupt.

It's not good politics, unfortunately. The political actors that have the will to do such a thing would get trounced by the next "pro business" candidate, and a lot of Americans would back such a candidate no matter how obvious the problem is. Job losses (albeit temporarily) as well as the temporary supply shock if 3M is the sole producer of any chemical or material that is of strategic importance. Voters who aren't the smartest lot would eat that sort of candidate up, and that candidate would also be backed heavily by other corporate wrong-doers who might also be in the crosshairs down the road. It's a tough situation.

The issue then becomes - if they don't have enough money to pay the fine, who is on the hook for the remaining damages? Think about it - if the company's market cap, assets, C-Suite/board combined net worths, etc.. is worth $N, and the total fine is $X (and N is less than X), who picks up the remainder of the cost to fully help those affected by the toxic chemicals? It's a tough question.

On a personal level, I fully agree with you - burn the company down and punish their board and C-Suite. Those who play by the rules get to participate in the free market, and those who don't need to suffer (and have their golden parachutes shot down). Skirting the rules is hubris at the end of the day, and hubris is not good.

>I don't understand. You think the taxpayer cannot be on the hook, yet you also think we are obligated to bail out the business by nationalizing it? What do you think nationalizing a business entails? It would literally place the taxpayer on the hook for that business. Nationalizing it would not imply any guarantee the business remains profitable, and future losses would be owned by the public.

Fair point. This is where things become difficult - because as I said above, who ultimately bears the responsibility if the company cannot afford to pay the full cost of damages? My solution would essentially be placing the company into a trust owned by the government - and the trust would be responsible for conducting a sale of the company's assets in a timely fashion.

The problem is that the taxpayer eventually foots the bill in one way or another. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

>I do agree that execs should be punished more severely though. We are absolutely on the same page there. And I don't care if the current execs are not the original execs responsible. As far as I can tell, they've allowed the problem to continue if not get worse.

Fine them all. Old and new.

[sokoloff]

> if they don't have enough money to pay the fine, who is on the hook for the remaining damages?

No one. The remaining damages go uncollected as there is no one to collect them from. Shareholders, bondholders, and junior creditors are wiped out of their ownership stake in 3M and the 3M company would cease to exist.

[NickC25]

And see - that's my issue. The fact that real people will still be fucked and unable to pay real medical costs associated with 3M's actions, yet the company and its shareholders can just say "oh, no more money, sorry" and wipe their hands.

I get the legal concept of Limited Liability, and appreciate why it's a thing, but I also get a really bad taste in my mouth if a corporation willingly and knowingly causes mass harm and doesn't face the full consequences for its actions.

[mensetmanusman]

In a company of 100k, probably like 8 people are at fault for this from the 80s and 90s. The rest are taking orders and are working on completely different areas of industry.

3M only works because they share R&D across various divisions. If it was broken up, the R&D goes away and new materials development all moves to Asia.