10 ms·

As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. If you steal 1.000,00€ from a bank, they don't fine you 1€. No.

As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. If you steal 1.000,00€ from a bank, they don't fine you 1€. No. They send you to jail for years.

sosodev 8y ago
Exactly. Why should corporations get off easy when we don't?
- aeorgnoieang 8y ago
  Why shouldn't we all get off easy (or easier)?
  - ocdtrekkie 8y ago
    Because then, like corporations do, we won't correct our behavior, we'll just accept the punishment as an occasional cost.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    Imagine if the punishment for stealing was to be fined for 10% of the amount you stole. Like, you get to keep 90% of it. You'd rob a bank and then drop by the police station to drop off their cut just to avoid the hassle of "getting investigated" later. So obviously the punishment has to be worse than the value of doing it. But not 1:1 either, if you know you'll only catch 50% of robbers, then the fine would have to be something like ${amountStolen}*3 so that the equation makes the Expected return of robbery sharply negative. I.e. if you expect to get caught 50% of the time, and only had to return the money you stole when caught... then robbery would be very profitable. If you had to pay twice what you stole, then the Expected return is actually a wash, and wouldn't necessarily deter potential robbers. However if you have to pay a fine of 3x what you stole and you think you'll get caught 50% of the time then it's a money-losing venture. This is all ignoring jail time, of course, because no one can send Google to jail... so from the corporations point of view it just comes down to money.
    - jquery 8y ago
      At $1.5B, it's about collecting revenue to fund EU activities. It's far beyond the amount of revenue the infraction generated by order(s?) of magnitude, and was a gray area to boot. Keeping the taxes as "fines" ensures they can give EU companies favorable treatment. It's the definition of corrupt: "a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money"
      - andrepd 8y ago
        >It's far beyond the amount of revenue the infraction generated by order(s?) of magnitude $1.5B is far below the amount of revenue Google got from advertising since 2006. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
    - anticensor 8y ago
      In European law, jail times and fines are multiplied by consecutive infringements to be punished. Meaning if you stole three times in a row and get caught after the third, you get sentenced three times the theft sentence.
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I believe part of the purpose of corporations is to create an entity that is capable of doing "icky" things that might be unpalatable for a person to do, but need to be done nonetheless. Specific examples of "icky" things include building war weapons, producing/testing drugs that we know will kill some patients, performing tasks which create pollution which will kill people, etc. I want to be clear that I'm not proposing how anything should be, and am definitely not implying we should let corporations run amok. I'm just suggesting I believe we're lenient on the icky behaviors of corporations by design. It saves legislators from having to specifically carve out exceptions in the law to allow dangerous things things. Nobody wants their name next to something that sounds like, "XYZ is allowed to kill some people". Instead, they just try to corral them in when it gets to be "too much."
  - esarbe 8y ago
    If that's the case, that sounds like a good argument to not allow incorporation.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      Do you have another suggestion for how to get icky things done which must be done?
      - robin_reala 8y ago
        Your argument is predicated on the fact that ‘they must be done’. I disagree.
        Consultant32452 8y ago
        Almost every meaningful human endeavor will result in some human deaths from time to time. A position of zero harm closely resembles a position of zero progress.
        Consultant32452 8y ago
- vnnkov 8y ago
  Because we can't close corporations for a rules violation.
  - wnevets 8y ago
    I mean we could
    - leesalminen 8y ago
      Kind of like how we could implement the death penalty for marijuana possession?
      - wnevets 8y ago
        It's not like there aren't countries where that exist.
        leesalminen 8y ago
        Right, but should we? Probably not. That’s what I’m getting at.
        wnevets 8y ago
        If we really cared about stopping marijuana possession, a death penalty that was objectively and consistently applied would probably work very well.
        rhizome 8y ago
        Arguments by analogy are not worth anybody's time.
        1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
        Arguments by analogy are an excellent way to compose an argument. Socrates built entire ethical systems using analogy.
- everdev 8y ago
  Corporate law has lots of grey area, robbing a bank doesn't.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
mfoy_ 8y ago
Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentive to even pretend to change their ways. They could just pay a small fine, laugh, and say "See you next year." EDIT: And now I'm getting down-voted too. Would you nay-sayers care to chime in with more than an e-frown?
- jessriedel 8y ago
  The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the top-level commentator is wondering whether a €1.5B fine is excessive in light of the fact that the entire market third-party search is much smaller than that.
  - mfoy_ 8y ago
    It is indexed, just not to the damages, but to the revenue of the guilty party. Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.
    - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
      > Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month. That makes no sense. If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have. And if that caused the billionaire to not care, that's great. If I got $150 every time someone stole $50 from me and that didn't deter them, I'd start researching how to get them to steal more money from me because it's so profitable to me. If they're willing to pay that much more than something costs, at that point you're just selling it to them and deterrence is not desired because the transaction is apparently net positive to both parties. Moreover, it seems that you're suggesting that someone with $0 income and $0 assets then should have a <=$50 fine because it's all they can afford? That's the thing that really wouldn't serve as a deterrent, in a problematic, net negative consequences sort of way.
mmmmmmmmm 8y ago
> As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. Please read the article. Google ceased the practice three years ago, so no it will not perpetuate.

As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. If you steal 1.000,00€ from a bank, they don't fine you 1€. No. They send you to jail for years.

sosodev 8y ago

Exactly. Why should corporations get off easy when we don't?

aeorgnoieang 8y ago
Why shouldn't we all get off easy (or easier)?
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Because then, like corporations do, we won't correct our behavior, we'll just accept the punishment as an occasional cost.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  Imagine if the punishment for stealing was to be fined for 10% of the amount you stole. Like, you get to keep 90% of it. You'd rob a bank and then drop by the police station to drop off their cut just to avoid the hassle of "getting investigated" later. So obviously the punishment has to be worse than the value of doing it. But not 1:1 either, if you know you'll only catch 50% of robbers, then the fine would have to be something like ${amountStolen}*3 so that the equation makes the Expected return of robbery sharply negative. I.e. if you expect to get caught 50% of the time, and only had to return the money you stole when caught... then robbery would be very profitable. If you had to pay twice what you stole, then the Expected return is actually a wash, and wouldn't necessarily deter potential robbers. However if you have to pay a fine of 3x what you stole and you think you'll get caught 50% of the time then it's a money-losing venture. This is all ignoring jail time, of course, because no one can send Google to jail... so from the corporations point of view it just comes down to money.
  - jquery 8y ago
    At $1.5B, it's about collecting revenue to fund EU activities. It's far beyond the amount of revenue the infraction generated by order(s?) of magnitude, and was a gray area to boot. Keeping the taxes as "fines" ensures they can give EU companies favorable treatment. It's the definition of corrupt: "a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money"
    - andrepd 8y ago
      >It's far beyond the amount of revenue the infraction generated by order(s?) of magnitude $1.5B is far below the amount of revenue Google got from advertising since 2006. I'm not sure what you mean by this.
  - anticensor 8y ago
    In European law, jail times and fines are multiplied by consecutive infringements to be punished. Meaning if you stole three times in a row and get caught after the third, you get sentenced three times the theft sentence.
Consultant32452 8y ago
I believe part of the purpose of corporations is to create an entity that is capable of doing "icky" things that might be unpalatable for a person to do, but need to be done nonetheless. Specific examples of "icky" things include building war weapons, producing/testing drugs that we know will kill some patients, performing tasks which create pollution which will kill people, etc. I want to be clear that I'm not proposing how anything should be, and am definitely not implying we should let corporations run amok. I'm just suggesting I believe we're lenient on the icky behaviors of corporations by design. It saves legislators from having to specifically carve out exceptions in the law to allow dangerous things things. Nobody wants their name next to something that sounds like, "XYZ is allowed to kill some people". Instead, they just try to corral them in when it gets to be "too much."
- esarbe 8y ago
  If that's the case, that sounds like a good argument to not allow incorporation.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    Do you have another suggestion for how to get icky things done which must be done?
    - robin_reala 8y ago
      Your argument is predicated on the fact that ‘they must be done’. I disagree.
      - Consultant32452 8y ago
        Almost every meaningful human endeavor will result in some human deaths from time to time. A position of zero harm closely resembles a position of zero progress.
        Consultant32452 8y ago
vnnkov 8y ago
Because we can't close corporations for a rules violation.
- wnevets 8y ago
  I mean we could
  - leesalminen 8y ago
    Kind of like how we could implement the death penalty for marijuana possession?
    - wnevets 8y ago
      It's not like there aren't countries where that exist.
      - leesalminen 8y ago
        Right, but should we? Probably not. That’s what I’m getting at.
        wnevets 8y ago
        If we really cared about stopping marijuana possession, a death penalty that was objectively and consistently applied would probably work very well.
        rhizome 8y ago
        Arguments by analogy are not worth anybody's time.
        1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
        Arguments by analogy are an excellent way to compose an argument. Socrates built entire ethical systems using analogy.
everdev 8y ago
Corporate law has lots of grey area, robbing a bank doesn't.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

mfoy_ 8y ago

Not sure why you're being down-voted... without a punitive component to the fine, (i.e. if it were only damages) then Google would have absolutely zero incentive to even pretend to change their ways. They could just pay a small fine, laugh, and say "See you next year." EDIT: And now I'm getting down-voted too. Would you nay-sayers care to chime in with more than an e-frown?

jessriedel 8y ago
The top-level commentator isn't arguing that fines should be capped at the damages, he's arguing that they should be indexed to the damages (say, proportional to them). If I steal $50, the punishment is larger than $50, but it's determined relative to that magnitude, and in particular does is not just picked to be a fraction of my income. A $100,000 fine would be excessive punishment for stealing $50 dollars, and the top-level commentator is wondering whether a €1.5B fine is excessive in light of the fact that the entire market third-party search is much smaller than that.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  It is indexed, just not to the damages, but to the revenue of the guilty party. Other countries in the EU do this as well, even in personal matters. For instance, a speeding ticket is based off a percentage of your annual income. Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month.
  - AnthonyMouse 8y ago
    > Why? Because if you make $200k a year, a $50 fine isn't a big deal, at all, but if you barely scrape by, $50 could break your budget for the month. That makes no sense. If you're stealing $50 then a $150 fine is a deterrent even if you're a billionaire, because the expected value if you're caught is -$100, which has nothing at all to do with how much money you have. And if that caused the billionaire to not care, that's great. If I got $150 every time someone stole $50 from me and that didn't deter them, I'd start researching how to get them to steal more money from me because it's so profitable to me. If they're willing to pay that much more than something costs, at that point you're just selling it to them and deterrence is not desired because the transaction is apparently net positive to both parties. Moreover, it seems that you're suggesting that someone with $0 income and $0 assets then should have a <=$50 fine because it's all they can afford? That's the thing that really wouldn't serve as a deterrent, in a problematic, net negative consequences sort of way.

mmmmmmmmm 8y ago

> As long as the punishment for the crime is less than the crime itself, crime will perpetuate. Please read the article. Google ceased the practice three years ago, so no it will not perpetuate.