It seems to me that using money to enforce accountability is only something that works for people for whom money is quite a bit more scarce. You know, poor peop

It seems to me that using money to enforce accountability is only something that works for people for whom money is quite a bit more scarce. You know, poor people, the middle class. You can really threaten someone's livelihood that way without resorting to prison. When you're looking at big business? Nah. They're not threatened by it: if the fine is too high the law doesn't get passed or it loses its teeth, because it's still cheaper to lobby for leniency. So you get a maximum threshold for a fine that is still pathetic and even further is likely never to be used. If that doesn't work, the business is big enough to threaten the government in power with an even greater loss by opting to dodge tax or shift operations elsewhere. Most of this legislation can be hacked through maths and clever accounting, or ultimately you just pay the workers less and increase the prices. Most businesses exist to make as much money as they can and you'd think that it would make it their most vulnerable spot, so you can hit them where it hurts. But it doesn't play out that way. It's essentially a monumental legal cop-out because there's no use holding the corporate entity itself accountable, because the corporate entity is pumping out money to the board no matter what. And we even recognise it as such by referring to such companies as having limited liability. Somehow the owner of a small business can lose their house and car if they fuck it all up, yet those in charge of a much larger company have an incredibly cushy layer of protection when they can deal infinitely greater damage when they put money above all else, sometimes malevolently so. Surely those liabilities should be reversed and the small shop should benefit from the protection from fucking up?