6 ms·

You sir are correct. I'm curious though; are there any really good solutions to this type of problem? You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all asse

You sir are correct. I'm curious though; are there any really good solutions to this type of problem? You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. Seems like there isn't really a good way to prevent companies from breaking the law. Well unless you do some sort of regular inspection / auditing but that is time consuming and insanely expensive. So it seems advantageous to me that, as long as you're not directly putting someone into harm's way or trying to screw with the IRS, you should always break the law to get ahead.

maxerickson 11y ago
What's wrong with putting companies out of business? I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but it provides officers and investors a significant incentive to avoid wrongdoing.
- nostrademons 11y ago
  The complication is that "wrongdoing" is in the eye of the beholder. Is Uber committing wrongdoing? The taxi companies certainly think so. Many municipalities think so. A lot of folks on Hacker News think so. But the folks who had a few too many beers and missed the last Caltrain and would otherwise drive home drunk if Uber didn't exist? The innocent folks that would otherwise have been killed by a drunk driver if Uber didn't exist? The folks who drive for Uber to pick up some spare cash in their spare time, or the ones who do it because they can't find any other income and would otherwise be destitute? The folks who drive for Uber to meet interesting new people? The Uberpreneurs who pitch their wares to a captive market for the duration of a ride? They all benefit significantly from Uber's existence. That's why this "get big fast and then hope you can avoid the consequences for your wrongdoing" strategy exists. The consequences will oftentimes not be known at the time an idea is conceived. Sometimes they will be much, much worse than is apparent at the time (look at the environmental pollution and global warming caused by heavy industry), while sometimes they will be a lot better (look at the liberalization and toppling of many totalitarian regimes since Facebook and Twitter came out). Oftentimes they will be both worse and better at the same time; someone killed in a revolution has clearly suffered, while someone who can open up a business that would previously have been shuttered by the government has benefitted.
  - dpark 11y ago
    > But the folks who had a few too many beers and missed the last Caltrain and would otherwise drive home drunk if Uber didn't exist? The innocent folks that would otherwise have been killed by a drunk driver if Uber didn't exist? This is quite a stretch. Uber is eliminating drunk driving fatalities now? Those same people couldn't have called a cab before Uber existed?
    - neuronexmachina 11y ago
      > Uber is eliminating drunk driving fatalities now? Those same people couldn't have called a cab before Uber existed? Speaking for myself, I take Uber/Lyft regularly but would have never even considered attempting to call a cab and dealing with the cost/uncertainty inherent to that. I'd much rather not spend an hour waiting outside for a cab that ultimately decides not to show up. Rather than deal with cabs, I would simply just not have had a drink if I didn't have a designated driver.
    - eli 11y ago
      I share your skepticism but that's actually an official Uber position: https://newsroom.uber.com/us-illinois/dui-rates-decline-in-uber-cities/ https://newsroom.uber.com/us-illinois/dui-rates-decline-in-u...
    - ttruett 11y ago
      Not knowing where you live / have lived... I think people in big cities forget how hard it is to find a taxi elsewhere. I can remember a specific example several years ago in Nashville (which is quickly becoming a big city) where after waiting for 15+ minutes downtown I had to start calling companies telling them to send a car to my corner. Before Uber came to Chattanooga (a decent-sized city) calling a taxi wasn't even a viable option unless it was for a scheduled 4AM airport pickup.
    - fapjacks 10y ago
      Just as a point on a graph and being totally honest, I take a Lyft nowadays when I otherwise have (stupidly) driven drunk before there was such a thing as Lyft. I agree that they're not saving the planet, but they almost certainly are preventing deadly harm. At least potentially if not kinetically.
- BinaryIdiot 11y ago
  > What's wrong with putting companies out of business? Well you have to decide what is or isn't worth destroying a business entity. Let's say Startup X breaks a law that, while illegal, has little to no impact on the general public. Let's say Startup X isn't found out until 5 years in and they're doing $300 million in revenue but without breaking that law they would be at some unknown number less than $300 million. Is that worth putting them out of business? If so, why? If not then what is the appropriate punishment? Seems like a really hard problem to be fair all the way around.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    Here's the problem: Doing anything other than punishing the company harshly, even if that means putting them out of business, signals to everyone else that the law is not serious, and can be broken at will. As far as if it's worth putting them out of business, I don't see why that should even be under consideration. You can't do the time, don't do the crime.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  There's a big difference between "illegal" and "wrong" though.
  - mcguire 10y ago
    Yes. Illegal is somewhat subjective. Wrong is entirely subjective.
- snappy173 11y ago
  Even then, you probably haven't solved the problem. A big reason that these products are structured as "startups" rather than within bigger companies is to limit the liability if they fail catastrophically or get caught breaking laws. Investors keep pouring gasoline on the fire; the message is "GROW GROW GROW" ... but if the fire burns out of control, it's somebody else's problem.
- pc86 10y ago
  > I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but ... The fact that you understand this could bankrupt and destroy people's lives simply because they worked at the wrong company at the wrong time, but still seek to rationalize it, is more than a little disturbing. Having draconian penalties for line employees is not going to do anything to dissuade a C-level executive who wants to commit fraud from committing fraud.
  - schlomok 10y ago
    But this doesn't make maxerickson or anybody else who shares their opinion the bad guy - it makes the executive.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    We destroy people's lives for lots of reasons in the US. Protecting the public from poorly behaved businesses would be better than most of them.
  - Retric 10y ago
    How does getting laid off from a startup destroy someones life? I can understand someone getting annoyed at not getting rich or not getting ROI from lower pay. But, that's from being both an employee an an investor.
  - serge2k 10y ago
    > Having draconian penalties for line employees is not going to do anything to dissuade a C-level executive who wants to commit fraud from committing fraud. Holding them personally responsible for fraud would help. As in you were the person in charge when this happened, here is a fine of millions + 2 years in jail. That's why they get the big money right? To be the ones responsible?
  - rodgerd 10y ago
    > The fact that you understand this could bankrupt and destroy people's lives simply because they worked at the wrong company at the wrong time Well, shit, best stop Uber from putting taxi companies out of business and Amazon from bankrupting booksellers.
jsprogrammer 11y ago
Why should a company that shouldn't have been in business be protected from being put out of business? You can't really prevent people from breaking the law (why have the law if it's impossible for anyone to break it?), but predetermined consequences could be played out when the law is intentionally broken. It seems that RICO would apply to this situation. Multiple individuals and companies/funds conspired to commit fraud.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  Because sometimes you're dealing with a bad law.
  - st3v3r 11y ago
    If that's the case, then the company should have been lobbying to have the law changed, instead of brazenly disregarding it and making money from having an unfair competitive advantage.
    - mindcrime 10y ago
      Personally I don't have any problem with disregarding a bad law. YMMV.
      - majewsky 10y ago
        Allowing people to ignore laws that they perceive as bad does not work on the scale of a society. What if, tomorrow, I decide that the Penal Code is a "bad law" and start to kill people because I disregard this law? We live in a free society and therefore we have the freedom to disregard any law that we consider "bad". But we must also face the consequences of our actions.
        reality_czech 10y ago
        This may surprise you, but humans aren't computer programs. They generally come with individual consciences and can decide what is right and wrong. It is insulting (almost a Godwin's law violation) to compare murder with the "crime" of disregarding arcane taxi regulations. It's very clear to everyone involved that the taxi regulations in question are designed mostly to protect the profits of a few fat cats who own license medallions (no, NOT drivers... most taxi drivers don't own medallions.) And taxi drivers were almost always contractors even before Uber came on the scene, so all the whining about how exploitive it is to be a contractor, etc. etc. is completely misinformed.
pessimizer 11y ago
> You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. It is a choice being made to prioritize the preservation of the company, though. Imagine a criminal justice system that prioritized the job of the criminal.
briffle 11y ago
You could put some of the 'people in charge' in jail.. then the company would not be harmed, but the leadership in the future would hesitate to be so caviler.. it would give you the 'reform' part of punish and reform that is supposed to happen in the justice system..
Analemma_ 11y ago
I'm going to echo all the other commenters: why not put the company out of business? Indeed, doing anything other than that is moral hazard.
st3v3r 11y ago
"You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply." Why not? If enough stuff like this happens, then companies are going to realize that breaking the law does actually have consequences.

maxerickson 11y ago

What's wrong with putting companies out of business? I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but it provides officers and investors a significant incentive to avoid wrongdoing.

nostrademons 11y ago
The complication is that "wrongdoing" is in the eye of the beholder. Is Uber committing wrongdoing? The taxi companies certainly think so. Many municipalities think so. A lot of folks on Hacker News think so. But the folks who had a few too many beers and missed the last Caltrain and would otherwise drive home drunk if Uber didn't exist? The innocent folks that would otherwise have been killed by a drunk driver if Uber didn't exist? The folks who drive for Uber to pick up some spare cash in their spare time, or the ones who do it because they can't find any other income and would otherwise be destitute? The folks who drive for Uber to meet interesting new people? The Uberpreneurs who pitch their wares to a captive market for the duration of a ride? They all benefit significantly from Uber's existence. That's why this "get big fast and then hope you can avoid the consequences for your wrongdoing" strategy exists. The consequences will oftentimes not be known at the time an idea is conceived. Sometimes they will be much, much worse than is apparent at the time (look at the environmental pollution and global warming caused by heavy industry), while sometimes they will be a lot better (look at the liberalization and toppling of many totalitarian regimes since Facebook and Twitter came out). Oftentimes they will be both worse and better at the same time; someone killed in a revolution has clearly suffered, while someone who can open up a business that would previously have been shuttered by the government has benefitted.
- dpark 11y ago
  > But the folks who had a few too many beers and missed the last Caltrain and would otherwise drive home drunk if Uber didn't exist? The innocent folks that would otherwise have been killed by a drunk driver if Uber didn't exist? This is quite a stretch. Uber is eliminating drunk driving fatalities now? Those same people couldn't have called a cab before Uber existed?
  - neuronexmachina 11y ago
    > Uber is eliminating drunk driving fatalities now? Those same people couldn't have called a cab before Uber existed? Speaking for myself, I take Uber/Lyft regularly but would have never even considered attempting to call a cab and dealing with the cost/uncertainty inherent to that. I'd much rather not spend an hour waiting outside for a cab that ultimately decides not to show up. Rather than deal with cabs, I would simply just not have had a drink if I didn't have a designated driver.
  - eli 11y ago
    I share your skepticism but that's actually an official Uber position: https://newsroom.uber.com/us-illinois/dui-rates-decline-in-uber-cities/ https://newsroom.uber.com/us-illinois/dui-rates-decline-in-u...
  - ttruett 11y ago
    Not knowing where you live / have lived... I think people in big cities forget how hard it is to find a taxi elsewhere. I can remember a specific example several years ago in Nashville (which is quickly becoming a big city) where after waiting for 15+ minutes downtown I had to start calling companies telling them to send a car to my corner. Before Uber came to Chattanooga (a decent-sized city) calling a taxi wasn't even a viable option unless it was for a scheduled 4AM airport pickup.
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    Just as a point on a graph and being totally honest, I take a Lyft nowadays when I otherwise have (stupidly) driven drunk before there was such a thing as Lyft. I agree that they're not saving the planet, but they almost certainly are preventing deadly harm. At least potentially if not kinetically.
BinaryIdiot 11y ago
> What's wrong with putting companies out of business? Well you have to decide what is or isn't worth destroying a business entity. Let's say Startup X breaks a law that, while illegal, has little to no impact on the general public. Let's say Startup X isn't found out until 5 years in and they're doing $300 million in revenue but without breaking that law they would be at some unknown number less than $300 million. Is that worth putting them out of business? If so, why? If not then what is the appropriate punishment? Seems like a really hard problem to be fair all the way around.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  Here's the problem: Doing anything other than punishing the company harshly, even if that means putting them out of business, signals to everyone else that the law is not serious, and can be broken at will. As far as if it's worth putting them out of business, I don't see why that should even be under consideration. You can't do the time, don't do the crime.
mindcrime 11y ago
There's a big difference between "illegal" and "wrong" though.
- mcguire 10y ago
  Yes. Illegal is somewhat subjective. Wrong is entirely subjective.
snappy173 11y ago
Even then, you probably haven't solved the problem. A big reason that these products are structured as "startups" rather than within bigger companies is to limit the liability if they fail catastrophically or get caught breaking laws. Investors keep pouring gasoline on the fire; the message is "GROW GROW GROW" ... but if the fire burns out of control, it's somebody else's problem.
pc86 10y ago
> I understand that it ends up having impacts on people that aren't necessarily involved in the misbehavior, but ... The fact that you understand this could bankrupt and destroy people's lives simply because they worked at the wrong company at the wrong time, but still seek to rationalize it, is more than a little disturbing. Having draconian penalties for line employees is not going to do anything to dissuade a C-level executive who wants to commit fraud from committing fraud.
- schlomok 10y ago
  But this doesn't make maxerickson or anybody else who shares their opinion the bad guy - it makes the executive.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  We destroy people's lives for lots of reasons in the US. Protecting the public from poorly behaved businesses would be better than most of them.
- Retric 10y ago
  How does getting laid off from a startup destroy someones life? I can understand someone getting annoyed at not getting rich or not getting ROI from lower pay. But, that's from being both an employee an an investor.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > Having draconian penalties for line employees is not going to do anything to dissuade a C-level executive who wants to commit fraud from committing fraud. Holding them personally responsible for fraud would help. As in you were the person in charge when this happened, here is a fine of millions + 2 years in jail. That's why they get the big money right? To be the ones responsible?
- rodgerd 10y ago
  > The fact that you understand this could bankrupt and destroy people's lives simply because they worked at the wrong company at the wrong time Well, shit, best stop Uber from putting taxi companies out of business and Amazon from bankrupting booksellers.

jsprogrammer 11y ago

Why should a company that shouldn't have been in business be protected from being put out of business? You can't really prevent people from breaking the law (why have the law if it's impossible for anyone to break it?), but predetermined consequences could be played out when the law is intentionally broken. It seems that RICO would apply to this situation. Multiple individuals and companies/funds conspired to commit fraud.

mindcrime 11y ago
Because sometimes you're dealing with a bad law.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  If that's the case, then the company should have been lobbying to have the law changed, instead of brazenly disregarding it and making money from having an unfair competitive advantage.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    Personally I don't have any problem with disregarding a bad law. YMMV.
    - majewsky 10y ago
      Allowing people to ignore laws that they perceive as bad does not work on the scale of a society. What if, tomorrow, I decide that the Penal Code is a "bad law" and start to kill people because I disregard this law? We live in a free society and therefore we have the freedom to disregard any law that we consider "bad". But we must also face the consequences of our actions.
      - reality_czech 10y ago
        This may surprise you, but humans aren't computer programs. They generally come with individual consciences and can decide what is right and wrong. It is insulting (almost a Godwin's law violation) to compare murder with the "crime" of disregarding arcane taxi regulations. It's very clear to everyone involved that the taxi regulations in question are designed mostly to protect the profits of a few fat cats who own license medallions (no, NOT drivers... most taxi drivers don't own medallions.) And taxi drivers were almost always contractors even before Uber came on the scene, so all the whining about how exploitive it is to be a contractor, etc. etc. is completely misinformed.

pessimizer 11y ago

> You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply. It is a choice being made to prioritize the preservation of the company, though. Imagine a criminal justice system that prioritized the job of the criminal.

briffle 11y ago

You could put some of the 'people in charge' in jail.. then the company would not be harmed, but the leadership in the future would hesitate to be so caviler.. it would give you the 'reform' part of punish and reform that is supposed to happen in the justice system..

Analemma_ 11y ago

I'm going to echo all the other commenters: why not put the company out of business? Indeed, doing anything other than that is moral hazard.

st3v3r 11y ago

"You can't rewind time and go back and taking away all assets gained in such a manner, while doable, would pretty much put the company out of business even if they're willing to comply." Why not? If enough stuff like this happens, then companies are going to realize that breaking the law does actually have consequences.