The remedy to both is free and open access to environmental data.
Not sure what “environmental” data is supposed to mean in this statement. But I agree that more information for the customer is better—there is often a huge asymmetry between the companies that sell stuff (and know what the stuff was made from) and customers who can only trust the information they get. In theory, there could be independent researchers that will try to figure out what the stuff was made from, and sell this information to curious customers. In practice, the companies would hire their fake experts, just like in the past their hired experts who said what smoking was great for your health.
And if your business model relies on the customer now knowing what they buy, I would call it a fraud, even if technically it is legal.
It seems to me many companies fight hard about disclosing the data about their products. It makes sense to have trade secrets you don’t want your competitors to get, but that’s now what I am talking about here. I mean the information you don’t want your potential customers to get. For example, how much protein is exactly in your “protein bar”, or how much sugar is exactly in your “healthy low-fat yogurt with fruit”. Or whether your product contains ingredients that many people are allergic to. Here it is more profitable to let the customers guess, because they predictably guess wrong. It’s technically not the same as lying to them, but the effect is the same. Actually, many companies plainly lie, for example by writing “no sugar” using big letters on the product, and then a note in small print explaining that they actually meant “no added sugar” (added to how much? no one knows, that’s exactly the point).
At this moment, I don’t know about any power other than governments that can make companies disclose such data. (In a reliable way. A company might disclose data voluntarily, but if there is no penalty for lying or being highly misleading, you have no reason to trust them. Such as with the “no sugar” products.)
But I think most people who quote Hayek would argue against government interventions in such situations.
Hey! Thanks for your reply. I agree, people who quote Hayek would not likely argue for more regulation (though for the record neither of us at Ground Truth are libertarians—we can see the merit of an idea outside of the context of who comes up with it).
I have one idea for a power outside of government: the public. Consumers. Investors. What if there was a great popular movement to see concrete evidence of project activities and impacts?
What if there was a great popular movement to see concrete evidence of project activities and impacts?
It would work, but it is not simple to get one; you’d need a culture of people who can actually distinguish between true and fabricated evidence, and be generally epistemically rational, and the questions must not form disconnected beliefs network. Net of falsehoods might collapse eventually; but with adversaries, net of truth could be warped as well.
Not sure what “environmental” data is supposed to mean in this statement. But I agree that more information for the customer is better—there is often a huge asymmetry between the companies that sell stuff (and know what the stuff was made from) and customers who can only trust the information they get. In theory, there could be independent researchers that will try to figure out what the stuff was made from, and sell this information to curious customers. In practice, the companies would hire their fake experts, just like in the past their hired experts who said what smoking was great for your health.
And if your business model relies on the customer now knowing what they buy, I would call it a fraud, even if technically it is legal.
It seems to me many companies fight hard about disclosing the data about their products. It makes sense to have trade secrets you don’t want your competitors to get, but that’s now what I am talking about here. I mean the information you don’t want your potential customers to get. For example, how much protein is exactly in your “protein bar”, or how much sugar is exactly in your “healthy low-fat yogurt with fruit”. Or whether your product contains ingredients that many people are allergic to. Here it is more profitable to let the customers guess, because they predictably guess wrong. It’s technically not the same as lying to them, but the effect is the same. Actually, many companies plainly lie, for example by writing “no sugar” using big letters on the product, and then a note in small print explaining that they actually meant “no added sugar” (added to how much? no one knows, that’s exactly the point).
At this moment, I don’t know about any power other than governments that can make companies disclose such data. (In a reliable way. A company might disclose data voluntarily, but if there is no penalty for lying or being highly misleading, you have no reason to trust them. Such as with the “no sugar” products.)
But I think most people who quote Hayek would argue against government interventions in such situations.
Hey! Thanks for your reply. I agree, people who quote Hayek would not likely argue for more regulation (though for the record neither of us at Ground Truth are libertarians—we can see the merit of an idea outside of the context of who comes up with it).
I have one idea for a power outside of government: the public. Consumers. Investors. What if there was a great popular movement to see concrete evidence of project activities and impacts?
It would work, but it is not simple to get one; you’d need a culture of people who can actually distinguish between true and fabricated evidence, and be generally epistemically rational, and the questions must not form disconnected beliefs network. Net of falsehoods might collapse eventually; but with adversaries, net of truth could be warped as well.
True. I’ve seen this happen firsthand.
But we will try. And maybe this is where it starts. Perhaps this audience is receptive to such a message.