3 ms·

I understand that. In those cases, the only negative impact to shareholders is potentially losing money. Maybe shareholders should have more responsibility.

SolarNet 8y ago
This destroys capitalism, you can't move the criminal risk to the shareholders. Increased monetary risk, sure: like corporations convicted of crimes have to give money in restitution before making shareholders whole; or even go the next step and make major shareholders liable for covering that restitution (if it exceeds assets on hand) in addition to eating the loss of stock. But for capitalism to function, investing must only lead to monetary penalties (but we could certainly make them stronger). If you have to, move it to executives, it could actually justify the insane salaries and bonuses.
- mcculley 8y ago
  I am not convinced that investors having more skin in the game would destroy capitalism. Maybe it would destroy our local interpretation of capitalism. Maybe that is a good thing.
- zipwitch 8y ago
  An objective debate over the future of capitalism is something our society needs.
- Symmetry 8y ago
  No, this is the system we used to have in the robber baron era and it functioned. It just leads to the concentration of control of large enterprises in the hands of individuals and small groups.
mcculley 8y ago
I'm amused by the downvotes for a controversial question. Check out http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html
- ericd 8y ago
  It's not that it's controversial, it's just that it's not a workable idea, or at least you haven't proposed any way to make it workable. That article, if I recall correctly, is about cultural taboos. I don't think this is one of those. Stepping up the level of fines and corporate penalties to be greater than the expected gains from bad behavior is a much more workable solution. Companies were much more careful to not act too monopolistically when the government was in full trust busting mode.
  - mcculley 8y ago
    You don't think it is a cultural taboo here on HN to question the wisdom of unfettered libertarian, free market entrepreneurship? Yes, the fines should probably be increased and enforced. But if I, as an investor, decide to put $10 into Uber, I only risk my $10 if Uber kills more people and breaks more laws. It seems to me I should have more responsibility than that for encouraging such behavior.
gnode 8y ago
Should the pensioners whose pensions are invested in index funds be sent to jail for Uber's actions? Where would this culpability end?
- mcculley 8y ago
  I don't know. I have wondered that as well. We currently have a system where the most wealthy benefit and have no skin in the game. That seems wrong to me. I welcome any solution that makes people think about the entities they support.

SolarNet 8y ago

This destroys capitalism, you can't move the criminal risk to the shareholders. Increased monetary risk, sure: like corporations convicted of crimes have to give money in restitution before making shareholders whole; or even go the next step and make major shareholders liable for covering that restitution (if it exceeds assets on hand) in addition to eating the loss of stock. But for capitalism to function, investing must only lead to monetary penalties (but we could certainly make them stronger). If you have to, move it to executives, it could actually justify the insane salaries and bonuses.

mcculley 8y ago
I am not convinced that investors having more skin in the game would destroy capitalism. Maybe it would destroy our local interpretation of capitalism. Maybe that is a good thing.
zipwitch 8y ago
An objective debate over the future of capitalism is something our society needs.
Symmetry 8y ago
No, this is the system we used to have in the robber baron era and it functioned. It just leads to the concentration of control of large enterprises in the hands of individuals and small groups.

mcculley 8y ago

I'm amused by the downvotes for a controversial question. Check out http://paulgraham.com/say.html http://paulgraham.com/say.html

ericd 8y ago
It's not that it's controversial, it's just that it's not a workable idea, or at least you haven't proposed any way to make it workable. That article, if I recall correctly, is about cultural taboos. I don't think this is one of those. Stepping up the level of fines and corporate penalties to be greater than the expected gains from bad behavior is a much more workable solution. Companies were much more careful to not act too monopolistically when the government was in full trust busting mode.
- mcculley 8y ago
  You don't think it is a cultural taboo here on HN to question the wisdom of unfettered libertarian, free market entrepreneurship? Yes, the fines should probably be increased and enforced. But if I, as an investor, decide to put $10 into Uber, I only risk my $10 if Uber kills more people and breaks more laws. It seems to me I should have more responsibility than that for encouraging such behavior.

gnode 8y ago

Should the pensioners whose pensions are invested in index funds be sent to jail for Uber's actions? Where would this culpability end?

mcculley 8y ago
I don't know. I have wondered that as well. We currently have a system where the most wealthy benefit and have no skin in the game. That seems wrong to me. I welcome any solution that makes people think about the entities they support.