Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

671

  1. "Green" energy isn't "green" at all. Solar panels, for example, are more toxic to the environment per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels, once you factor in the cost of manufacturing (you know, like strip mining mountains to get the rare materials needed to fabricate solar cells)

  2. Corporations are "leading the charge". This is always a red flag. Corps don't have your best interests in mind; they are legally obligated to not give a crap about anything except for profit --

  3. We (you and me) pay for "green" energy programs. The ONLY reason ANYONE can afford a Tesla is because the government (you and me) subsidizes "green" energy programs. Look at Hong Kong, they decided to stop subsidizing solar energy and as a result, Tesla sales dropped to ZERO.

  4. We already have the best "green" energy source known to man: nuclear. There exists technology to safely convert radioactive waste into an inert substance. France already has and implements such technology. Whenever it's proposed in the US, it's shot down by politicians who are backed by corporations (see point 2)

1. "Green" energy isn't "green" at all. Solar panels, for example, are more toxic to the environment per kilowatt hour than fossil fuels, once you factor in the cost of manufacturing (you know, like strip mining mountains to get the rare materials needed to fabricate solar cells) 1. Corporations are "leading the charge". This is *always* a red flag. Corps don't have your best interests in mind; they are *legally obligated* to not give a crap about anything except for profit -- [some deets](https://poal.co/s/Whatever/101136/b4cecdb0-b8f0-4c06-91d4-ac8a4cbff3b4) 1. We (you and me) pay for "green" energy programs. The *ONLY* reason *ANYONE* can afford a Tesla is because the government (you and me) subsidizes "green" energy programs. Look at Hong Kong, they decided to stop subsidizing solar energy and as a result, Tesla sales dropped to ZERO. 1. We already have the best "green" energy source known to man: nuclear. There exists technology to safely convert radioactive waste into an inert substance. France already has and implements such technology. Whenever it's proposed in the US, it's shot down by politicians who are backed by corporations (see point 2)

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (20).
[–] [deleted] • 2 pts (edited )

It's one of those situations where there's no law that explicitly states "corps must maximize profits at all costs." Instead, there are lots of laws that are involved to make this true.

Regardless of there being no explicit statue that verbatim states "corps must maximize profits" -- corps must maximize profits

Why?

Corporations are beholden to their shareholders, the shareholders demand profits, thus a corporations is obligated to maximize profits. If it doesn't, the corporation can be legally culpable for not doing everything it can to maximize profits. So, in practical reality, a corporation functions under the legal obligation of maximizing profits.

[–] • 2 pts

Huh interesting I hadn’t really considered that but if you think about it, that alone could really be responsible for a large part of the economic problems facing the US today. An argument against publicly traded companies I guess.

[–] • 1 pt

Not really. If you don't want to deal with that bullshit, you limit the shareholders.

The thing is that going private allows you to amass a large amount of money in a short amount of time.

The problems the US have can be traced back to the fed, and creating large amounts of money out of nothing.

[–] • 0 pt

Well obviously the fed is a large part of the problem's in the US but the behavior of companies acting against the interest of the country and system that allows them to exist in the first place could definitely be traced to they are legally required to behave in a way that considers nothing but profit.

[–] • 0 pt

We should start by stopping quarterly reports. All that does is force publicly traded corps to chase profits.

[–] • 0 pt

Not disagreeing but I do wonder what your logic here is?

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Exactly.

We have a system that relies on "share price" rather than providing value or fostering and developing talent within the organization.

Executives recently met and made a statement rejecting this systen, but I doubt it had much effect.