[robertlagrant]

It's really not. Profits are taxed. Losses are lost by investors. The environment should be protected by regulations, not by relying on good will. That way the boundaries are clear and companies can do what they do best: allocate resources efficiently, towards demand, within rules.

[cwillu]

Regulations should be a backstop after decency and goodwill fails. No one facet of the structure society is made of can support all of society, there needs to be safety factors in the building materials.

[robertlagrant]

> Regulations should be a backstop after decency and goodwill fails

People won't know the implications of decisions without regulations to help them. Of course businesses are populated by people, who will try and do the right thing if that's how they are, but that doesn't mean they know what the right thing is.

> No one facet of the structure society is made of can support all of society, there needs to be safety factors in the building materials.

I can't parse this, sorry. Happy to have a read if you reword.

[cwillu]

> People won't know the implications of decisions without regulations to help them.

That's a pretty expansive view of government; I'll grant that regulations are one mechanism for communicating the implications of decisions, but to say that people can't know the implications without regulations? That just seems silly to the point that I'm unsure if I'm intended to legitimately engage with that viewpoint; is that your actual opinion?

[robertlagrant]

I'd rather stick to the topic of discussion than start discussing the discussion. Do you have a point to make?

[cwillu]

Relying on one mechanism (say, regulations) as the sole means of making sure that society functions well, is a recipe for dysfunction.

[robertlagrant]

"Society functions well" is far too broad a brush. We're talking about what companies should do.

[mouzogu]

another gift of the friedman neolib era was massive deregulation.