http://brother-dour.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] brother-dour.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] talkpolitics 2013-09-09 04:49 pm (UTC)

This assumes that "self-interest" begins and ends at the financial bottom line

I believe private for-profit companies exist for the purpose of making profits. So I would say it ultimately does begin and end at the bottom line. If my hypothetical company decided to make the $9 profit product instead, it would only be because they anticipated a costly PR nightmare if they went with the $10 product. It always comes down to the financial bottom line.

And you can't blame DDT for the increase in malaria, because there are other (arguably safer) pesticides on the market that are just as good at killing mosquitos. But they are also more expensive, so the blame still lies with the mechanism of corporate self-interest. I don't see any of these corporations that make these equally effective but more expensive pesticides offering to sell it to developing nations at cost or even at a loss- because, again, that would be against their self-interests. If they chose to do so, it would not be to save lives but rather for warm fuzzy fell-good points with the public.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
(will be screened if not validated)
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting