Corporations don't do things that people don't want to pay for.

The entire purpose of their existence is to provide products to customers that want them.

The miraculous thing is people eschewing responsibility by putting blaming the person selling products to the people that want them.

If ot weren't for all those drug dealers, we wouldn't have any addicts.

▲

odie5533 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Your explanation assumes that 1) people have full knowledge of everything corporations do and 2) corporations aren't hiding what they do.

Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants.

Your drug dealer analogy actually proves the opposite: we hold dealers responsible precisely because we recognize supply drives addiction. That's exactly why we have laws against dealing rather than just treating addiction as purely a demand-side problem. By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want.

▲

parineum a day ago | parent [-]

> Corporations actively use addiction and psychological manipulation. They're not just passively filling consumer wants.

Are you suggesting people have a plastic bag addiction? What exactly are the plastic bag manufacturers doing that is unethical? Let's use real examples instead of vague accusations. I'm not going to start with your assumptions that corporations are all evil and are definitely doing bad stuff so you're going to need to cite examples about this specific case.

> By your analogy, drug dealing should be legal because it gives the people what they want.

How much of the harm of drugs comes from the illegality of the market? What of the drugs that are legal, why aren't they so harmful? There's a great case study about the effects of black markets when the US banned alcohol, caused a massive surge in organized crime, then reversed the ban and solved the problem they created.

Drugs cause harm. So do cars, so do plastic bags, so do knives, so do guns, etc. Harm to users/consumers sometimes a good reason, sometimes not, to make things illegal.

▲

odie5533 a day ago | parent [-]

Do you work for a plastic bag company?

The American Progressive Bag Alliance (representing Novolex, Hilex Poly, Superbag, and Advance Polybag) has:

- Spent $6+ million fighting California's bag ban through misleading ballot measures https://resource-recycling.com/plastics/2016/08/17/plastic-b...

- Funded studies claiming reusable bags harbor dangerous bacteria (while omitting that washing eliminates this) https://archive.is/p7Qza

- Sued cities implementing bag bans, forcing expensive legal defenses https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/20/plastic-bags-have-l...

▲

parineum a day ago | parent [-]

> Spent $6+ million fighting California's bag ban through misleading ballot measures

"Misleading". 6m is hardly anything in a CA election. The article even agrees, “[The $6.1 million spent by manufacturers] is big money, but in California, for 17 ballot measures, it’s essentially petty cash,” he said.

How much evil money did the ban supporters spend? It's funny how negative you phrase the actions taken by the side you don't support.

And yet the ban exists.

> Funded studies claiming reusable bags harbor dangerous bacteria (while omitting that washing eliminates this)

I know lots of people that use re-useable cloth bags that don't wash them. How many studies did the environmental lobbies spend proving that plastic is horrible, ignoring the fact that most retailers simply replace cheap plastic bags with heavy duty "re-useable" plastic?

> Sued cities implementing bag bans, forcing expensive legal defenses

Nobody should sue cities now? That's pretty rich considering how often governments are sued by environmental groups.

▲

odie5533 a day ago | parent [-]

You skipped my question.

Do you work for a plastic manufacturer or are otherwise involved in plastic use or manufacturing?

	▲	parineum a day ago \| parent [-]
		No. Believe it or not, everyone who disagrees with you isn't a shill.

▲

makeitdouble 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> The entire purpose of their existence is

to make money.

Customers wanting or not the product is only one of the path to that. Aligning with competitors to avoid profit reducing change to the market is one way to optimize for money while giving the middle finger to customers.

> people eschewing responsibility by putting blaming the person selling

Eschewing the responsibility of companies with money flow the size of a small nation, crazy marketing budgets, plenty access to lobbying and political power at an international level is way worse in my book.

▲

lm28469 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Corporations don't do things that people don't want to pay for

Have you heard about lobbies and the billion of dollars companies spend in advertising targeting everyone from the moment their mom shits them out in the world?

Are people born wanting an iPhone 98 Max S pro and a Ford mustang gt5000 7.0 ultimate? I doubt it, but they sure are influenced by comics/movies/ads 24/7 into wanting them.

Do you think the average Joe stands a chance again zuck and his friends hiring the top behavioral scientists and paying the 1m a year to make sure their ad delivery platform are addictive as possible?

▲

pnt12 a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed with first sentence ( and only). That's why the state must legislate and fiscalize rules that benefit the population.

I don't even condemn businesses (too much). For a single business to be more eco friendly it must raise costs anf lose competitiveness. For a state to mandate these stuff, all businesses will be on the same level - and they'll have to compete for practical or cheaoet ways to be eco friendly.

It's the tragedy of the Commons, and the only way to win is to enforce rules for everyone.

▲

milch 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Every person I know that works "back of the house" says the amount of plastic that you don't even see as a consumer is at least 10x of the final consumer packaging