5 ms·
Well you're making some assumptions about damages and maybe have opinions what constitutes damages. I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue re
by Brockenstein 8y ago
Well you're making some assumptions about damages and maybe have opinions what constitutes damages. I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and your fine is in the thousands, it's toothless. Companies will gladly pay a pittance in fines over and over again against billions in revenue. That's not ideal from and enforcement standpoint. It doesn't get companies to follow the law and play by the rules. There's consequences for that too, voters have opinions about their governments letting companies run amok without any real consequences or deterrents.
- AnthonyMouse 8y ago> I think the other side you have to consider is if revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and your fine is in the thousands, it's toothless. If the revenue related to wrong doing is in the billions and the harm is in the thousands, attempting to prohibit the conduct instead of imposing a small tax and using the money to compensate the victims is obviously a large dead-weight economic loss.