International News Thread

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't know much about the Brazilian far right candidate, but what little I know feels a bit Duterte-ish.

[kairparavel]

The story of missing (and likely murdered) journalist Jamal Khashoggi is awful. Various reports suggest he was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate which is why there isn't any video footage of him exiting. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/missing-journalists-fiancee-demands-where-is-jamal/2018/10/08/d1734ac8-cb15-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html
 

At any rate,  it's bad all around - Saudi regime and the targeted war on journalists around the world. 

[Altherion]

It's rather dangerous to be a journalist right now and not just in the places where this is usually the case. For example, here's the front page story on Yahoo right now:

Quote

Bulgarian police are investigating the rape and slaying of a female television reporter whose body was dumped near the Danube River after she reported on the possible misuse of European Union funds in Bulgaria.

Authorities discovered the body of 30-year-old Viktoria Marinova on Saturday in the northern town of Ruse near the Romanian border. Police said she had been raped, beaten and strangled and her body was found in a park near the river.

 

[Week]

3 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's rather dangerous to be a journalist right now and not just in the places where this is usually the case. For example, here's the front page story on Yahoo right now:

 

Or at a really for the President of the United States where the media is branded as the enemy of the people?

[maarsen]

9 hours ago, kairparavel said:

The story of missing (and likely murdered) journalist Jamal Khashoggi is awful. Various reports suggest he was murdered and dismembered inside the Saudi consulate which is why there isn't any video footage of him exiting. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/missing-journalists-fiancee-demands-where-is-jamal/2018/10/08/d1734ac8-cb15-11e8-ad0a-0e01efba3cc1_story.html
 

At any rate,  it's bad all around - Saudi regime and the targeted war on journalists around the world. 

Maybe Canada will get a little support now when they raise the issue of human rights in Saudi Arabia. 

[Corvinus85]

14 hours ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

Has anyone been paying attention to what's been going on in Brazil over the last few years? Multiple impeachment, so much corruption and people in jail, and now it looks like they're about to elect a new president who urns for the days of a military dictatorship.

This podcast on the subject is worth a listen (it's like 35 minutes long):

https://the1a.org/shows/2018-10-04/campaigning-from-a-hospital-bed-a-far-right-politician-pulls-ahead-in-brazil 

The dickhead got 46% of the vote in the first round, nearly winning right there and then. The only was he loses in the 2nd round is if pretty much everyone who voted for candidates with little chance to win back the other guy. I'm not hopeful.

[Ser Reptitious]

17 minutes ago, Corvinus said:

The dickhead got 46% of the vote in the first round, nearly winning right there and then. The only was he loses in the 2nd round is if pretty much everyone who voted for candidates with little chance to win back the other guy. I'm not hopeful.

John Oliver did a segment on the guy. It is truly mind-boggling that this guy could (and sadly probably will) win: 

 

[Corvinus85]

17 minutes ago, Ser Reptitious said:

John Oliver did a segment on the guy. It is truly mind-boggling that this guy could (and sadly probably will) win: 

 

Saw that. As usual, equally funny and sad segment. That Ellen Page interview reached new levels of cringe-worthiness.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

I’m still laughing that I wrote “urns” instead of “yearns.” It was such a bad error that I felt no need to change it.

One of the big reasons why he might win is that a lot of Brazilians just have no desire to vote (and as a poli sci major, I can never understand this).

There’s also a massive crime wave going on and he’s head and shoulders the candidate that wants to be the harshest on criminals. He’s basically arguing that cops should be empowered to just kill anyone they deem to be a problem, even if the perceived crimes are misdemeanors.  

[Corvinus85]

And it didn't help that someone stabbed him, which only got him more support.

[mormont]

Detailed report on the BBC today concerning internment (or 're-education') camps for Uighurs in China:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/China_hidden_camps

The sheer numbers are chilling. 

[The Anti-Targ]

On 10/10/2018 at 3:14 AM, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

I’m still laughing that I wrote “urns” instead of “yearns.” It was such a bad error that I felt no need to change it.

One of the big reasons why he might win is that a lot of Brazilians just have no desire to vote (and as a poli sci major, I can never understand this).

There’s also a massive crime wave going on and he’s head and shoulders the candidate that wants to be the harshest on criminals. He’s basically arguing that cops should be empowered to just kill anyone they deem to be a problem, even if the perceived crimes are misdemeanors.  

I did say he had a Duterte feel about him.

An on a completely different topic

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/oct/24/apple-samsung-fined-for-slowing-down-phones

Quote

Apple and Samsung fined for deliberately slowing down phones

Italian investigation found software updates ‘significantly reduced performance’, hastening new purchases

What the hell man? I thought shonky batteries that start to lose charge after about a year was bad enough. Is there a low to which companies won't sink in the pursuit of ever growing profits?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

What the hell man? I thought shonky batteries that start to lose charge after about a year was bad enough. Is there a low to which companies won't sink in the pursuit of ever growing profits?

You work in the agricultural sector. You know what goes into our food. 

[The Anti-Targ]

2 minutes ago, SpaceForce Tywin et al. said:

You work in the agricultural sector. You know what goes into our food. 

I do, and because the agriculture sector is highly regulated, much more so than most other business sectors, it's actually a lot less bad than what organic / vegan propagandists say. It's actually more the environmental impact of agriculture that's the concern (and the least regulated aspect of agriculture, surprise, surprise), not just regarding climate change, but also water use, water pollution, air pollution (including odour), habitat destruction, harm to wildlife (including insect populations) etc.  

Our particular problem was a huge explosion in dairy farming, in places where the environment is really not suited to dairy farming (high water demand, among other things). Only now, 20 years later are people suggesting that there could be more control over land use, to ensure what the land is used to produce is more in line with natural environmental conditions and soil fertility. No one was having that conversation back then, even though everyone new that there was a good reason dairy farming didn't naturally evolve in those places compared to the places where it did naturally evolve.

 

[Altherion]

22 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is there a low to which companies won't sink in the pursuit of ever growing profits?

In a word, no. In fact, there is a quote from either Marx or another thinker which says something pithy pretty much with the words in your post, but I can't remember either the exact phrasing or the person. It's something like "There's no crime which a capitalist would not commit for additional profit," but not exactly that.

[The Anti-Targ]

43 minutes ago, Altherion said:

In a word, no. In fact, there is a quote from either Marx or another thinker which says something pithy pretty much with the words in your post, but I can't remember either the exact phrasing or the person. It's something like "There's no crime which a capitalist would not commit for additional profit," but not exactly that.

Yeah, I already knew the answer, but it's good to remind ourselves from time to time.

There is only one question a corporation asks: will it make money? If yes --> do it; if no --> don't do it.

The only reason companies appear to have any ethics is because some companies look deeply and long term at profit and are more sophisticated at risk assessment, including considering things like social licence. But the decision to do something, or not do something, still comes down to whether there will be profit in it.

[Proudfeet]

2 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

The only reason companies appear to have any ethics is because some companies look deeply and long term at profit and are more sophisticated at risk assessment, including considering things like social licence. But the decision to do something, or not do something, still comes down to whether there will be profit in it.

Is there a reason to specifically lay the blame on companies? Companies are staffed by people and I'm sure people that are self-employed can be just as unscrupulous. 

[maarsen]

5 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Is there a reason to specifically lay the blame on companies? Companies are staffed by people and I'm sure people that are self-employed can be just as unscrupulous. 

Venality inside a corporation is so much easier to diffuse. 

[The Anti-Targ]

15 hours ago, Proudfeet said:

Is there a reason to specifically lay the blame on companies? Companies are staffed by people and I'm sure people that are self-employed can be just as unscrupulous. 

More specifically it's publicly traded corporations whose sole legal mandate is to increase shareholder value. So when the only goal you are legally allowed to pursue is profit this distorts the decision-making. The corporation as a legal person is basically required to be an amoral sociopath. Essentially, the whole is ethically less than the sum of its parts. That being case, quite often its sociopathic types who often rise to the top of these entities, because they will be the best at pursuing profits with no other considerations. The mandate to increase shareholder value is an important one, because in a publicly traded company you have thousands of shareholders who have no contact or influence over the day to day business, and their interests need to be protected, the problem is that this is the ONLY mandate. If other considerations were mandatory, for instance fair treatment and compensation of workers, minimising or mitigating harm to the environment, proactively preventing physical or psychological harm to the consumer, corporations would be more well balanced. At the moment the way we force corporations to do that is by having regulations that can take profits away from companies that do bad things, environmental laws, labour relations laws, product safety regulations, health and safety regulations etc. Arguably one wouldn't need that regulation if corporations were given a broader set of goals to pursue.

In private/family companies and people who are self-employed there is no legal constraint on them to only increase shareholder value, they are allowed to sacrifice profits for other goals, and be driven purely by their own personal philosophies (which might be good or bad / beneficial or harmful) as they won't have shareholders coming to them every quarter asking why profits are down.

[Proudfeet]

9 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

More specifically it's publicly traded corporations whose sole legal mandate is to increase shareholder value. So when the only goal you are legally allowed to pursue is profit this distorts the decision-making. The corporation as a legal person is basically required to be an amoral sociopath. Essentially, the whole is ethically less than the sum of its parts. That being case, quite often its sociopathic types who often rise to the top of these entities, because they will be the best at pursuing profits with no other considerations. The mandate to increase shareholder value is an important one, because in a publicly traded company you have thousands of shareholders who have no contact or influence over the day to day business, and their interests need to be protected, the problem is that this is the ONLY mandate. If other considerations were mandatory, for instance fair treatment and compensation of workers, minimising or mitigating harm to the environment, proactively preventing physical or psychological harm to the consumer, corporations would be more well balanced. At the moment the way we force corporations to do that is by having regulations that can take profits away from companies that do bad things, environmental laws, labour relations laws, product safety regulations, health and safety regulations etc. Arguably one wouldn't need that regulation if corporations were given a broader set of goals to pursue.

In private/family companies and people who are self-employed there is no legal constraint on them to only increase shareholder value, they are allowed to sacrifice profits for other goals, and be driven purely by their own personal philosophies (which might be good or bad / beneficial or harmful) as they won't have shareholders coming to them every quarter asking why profits are down.

Thanks, but I think that that is a very superficial way of looking at it. I don't know of many people who will put their organisation before themselves. much less the shareholders. That is why they try to have their interests coincide. For example, matching bonuses to financial benchmarks.

As far as legality goes, breach of fiduciary duty is mainly for "negligence" or personal benefit. When it comes to unethical decisions, it is still very much on the management trying to increase their own bonuses and any benefit for the company is just an extra. The legal argument sounds to me that you are claiming that shareholders will sue the board when they find out Apple/Samsung didn't implement forced slowing down of phones when their rival did.