[cqqxo4zV46cp]

Don’t make excuses. Putting psychopaths in the drivers seat is a precipitation of capitalism. Capitalism decides the ultimate KPI, and eventually things shake out this way. We don’t just get to say, yes, there goes another psychopathic executive, and wash our hands of the whole thing. Christ. We all make systems for a living. Look at indirect consequences.

[stef25]

Even psychopaths don't want to end up disgraced or in jail. So maybe it's the lack of punishment we dole out to these kinds of people.

Nowadays companies can seriously suffer by mishandling their "attitudes" over social justice issues, my gut reaction was that if that's true how could they get away with a plane falling out of the sky. Still a bigger deal than dozen people dying in cars with faulty fuel systems, perhaps just because of the optics.

[feoren]

> Even psychopaths don't want to end up disgraced or in jail. So maybe it's the lack of punishment we dole out to these kinds of people.

You're describing effective regulatory oversight. That is a manual control on capitalism, and something capitalism inevitably fights against. Psychopaths exist and look for ways to exploit capitalism, including "fuck it, we'll risk loss of human life and possibly having to shut down the company", which you said isn't due to capitalism. But it is: it's due to the combination of capitalism and human nature, but we can only control the former. The solution is regulatory oversight, as you just pointed out.

Also: realize that psychopaths will absolutely risk shutting down the company if they think they can exit with a personal profit before that happens. CEOs routinely fuck over the longevity of the companies they lead, knowing they won't be around for the fallout. In fact it's hard to find situations where this doesn't happen -- it's almost always private companies or companies where the CEO is completely entrenched.

[foofie]

> Don’t make excuses. Putting psychopaths in the drivers seat is a precipitation of capitalism.

That's a disingenuous take. There are plenty of examples where psycho apparatchiks of anti-capitalist regimes made decisions "for the common good" that resulted in loss of life and even genocide and still they hailed those results as a win.

[feoren]

GP said "System A doesn't work without controls" and you replied "that's disingenuous: System B also doesn't work without controls". Okay? That has nothing to do with it.

[foofie]

> Okay? That has nothing to do with it.

You missed the whole point. The point is that having psychos in charge is not a characteristic of an economic system. It's a characteristic of forming organizations manned by human beings.

It's terribly disingenuous to use that as a pretext to bash an economic system as if you don't have the exact same problem affecting organizations that are not ran based on that economic system. It's like claiming that the fact that water is wet is a precipitation of capitalism.