3 ms·
I carefully used the word "might" because this is clearly a complex issue, and I'm no economist. As someone who would otherwise be classified as "pro-business"
by slantyyz 16y ago
I carefully used the word "might" because this is clearly a complex issue, and I'm no economist.
As someone who would otherwise be classified as "pro-business", I have found myself more and more dismayed by the bad behaviour of the largest corporations and their influence on the government.
A corporation is a legal entity with rights equal to a human, but in an Animal Farm kind of way. Their influence over governments and lawmaking make them "more equal" than Joe Q. Public. I would like to see checks and balance to keep the most flagrant corporate/financial bad behaviour under control.
- lkrubner 16y ago" I have found myself more and more dismayed by the bad behaviour of the largest corporations and their influence on the government." Me too. That's not the issue. The issue is why anyone would suggest jail. There is a large range of actions that could be pursued to modify the incentives that lead people to make reckless gambles with credit. Why not pursue those other actions first? Why not change the financial incentives? Why resort to jail?
- slantyyz 16y agoI didn't suggest jail. I only suggested a stick. That stick could be in the form of fines or other financial sanctions.
- lkrubner 16y agoYes, that's what I said. There are many, many changes that could be made to the system that would change the incentives that motivate the people in the financial industry, and by changing the incentives we could expect that their behavior would alter. None of which requires jail. Larger fines should be enough to greatly change the incentives.
- lkrubner 16y agoI wasn't suggesting that you suggested jail. This thread is about an article in which Stiglitz suggests jail.