6 ms·

After all they are responsible for thousands of deaths. And they knew it. I don't know why they aren't in jail already.

by grumpydba 7y ago

cies 7y ago
That's because of the "limited" of private limited. (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized.
- smhost 7y ago
  is that inherent? i haven't read Capital, but this doesn't seem so much of an inherent problem with capitalism than it seems like a very dumb implementation liability protection.
  - filleokus 7y ago
    What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      It's a feature when it's good faith efforts. It's very clearly a bug when it's used to evade no end of abuse, illegality and fraud, or to avoid paying the pollution cleanup. There probably needs to be some exceptional way in law to pierce the shell of limited liability and go after officers, perhaps even claw back from investors and shareholders.
      - cies 7y ago
        see my sibling comment
      - tomp 7y ago
        Limited liability only protects the capital of the shareholders, it doesn't protect the management of the company against criminal prosecution. (In practice, however, managers are only rarely put in jail, both because it's notoriously difficult to prove white-collar crime (except in few cases, like insider trading, which are the pursued with extra vigor), and because CEOs are generally rich and well connected... but the problem there is corruption, not some inherent feature/bug of the idea of limited liability company.)
        NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Perhaps I could have expressed it better. I meant to go for the financials. There are countless cases where the factory or mine has declined and instead of cleaning it up, as promised, they shutter the company. Then there's the countless cases where the company is doing something illegal. Take the proceeds back. We take money earned from theft and drug dealing, we take the stolen car from the person who innocently bought it. There's an offence of receiving stolen property. We don't take the millions from the execs who made millions pushing pharmaceuticals illegally, or the nuclear plant CEO and shareholder that has now, by dint of closure, given the job of decommissioning to the state - i.e. all of us. Once in a blue moon there's a criminal prosecution, but they just about always manage to stay wealthy. We need to rethink the limits of limited liability as it's become a convenient shield to hide all sorts of unethical, shitty and outright illegal behaviour behind.
        michaelt 7y ago
        I have always thought there should be a law that funds for things like mine clearup and pensions should be paid as the debt is incurred, and locked up so there's no way for the company to get at it.
        cies 7y ago
        Comparing a PtLd to a "personal business" the PtLd shields the owners from criminal liability for crimes committed by the PtLd, while the "personal biz" provides no such protection. > Limited liability only protects the capital of the shareholders, No, it also protects shareholders from crimes the PtLd commits in order to "serve them". This is a main problem with PtLds imho.
    - smhost 7y ago
      i thought limited liabilites are a recent invention associated with neoliberalization of the 80s.
      - filleokus 7y ago
        They have been a thing here in Sweden since the mid 1800's, and probably even earlier elsewhere.
    - cies 7y ago
      i suggest that, when a PtLd or publicly traded company gets under criminal investigation, that all trade in shares gets suspended. when a fine/settlement is determined the trade is resumed but the fine is --for the part that cannot be paid in cash-- paid in equity while considering an adjusted valuation (post fine) of the company. This means the shareholders dilute to pay the fine/settlement. 1) the fine needs to be fair to the society (often we see these "slap on the wrist" fines for big corps, that's just disgusting and shows how much our democracies are disfunctional) 2) i suggest this because i want the shareholders to be pushing their companies to ethical behavior. 3) it is very important that companies are also held liable for unethical behavior in other countries, and/or even for unethical behavior of subsidiaries (the foxcons and the likes).
      - tomp 7y ago
        The company is going bankrupt, so the effective "fine" to the shareholders is 100% of their equity. That's the point - "limited liability" just means it can't be more than 100% of equity.
        cies 7y ago
        Good point. I should have added: 4) When the fine is larger than the company's worth, collect it from the shareholders.
        tomp 7y ago
        Then noone would invest. Don't forget that often "shareholders" are index funds, pensioners, school endowments... No, the correct solution already exists - the criminal justice system going after criminals that did crime - it just doesn't work very well (especially when criminals are rich - e.g. Epstein - no need for "limited liability company").
        cies 7y ago
        there are so many ways a huge corp can commit crimes while individuals can all use the "plausible deniability" card. also often the crime is committed by the company as a whole, while no individual did something wrong. > Then noone would invest. i disagree, you just only invest in ethically sound endeavours. and thats exactly what im trying to achieve by my suggestions. starve bad-business from investment and/or people willing to take ownership. and make investors also do dilligence on the ethical side, instead of only an assessment of books+team+product+market.
  - 0x262d 7y ago
    what capital says is that under capitalism, the ruling class will continually set up dumb rules, such as this one, in their favor, and they have a structural advantage in doing so, so are increasingly successful at it until it provokes revolt.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      They'll do that under any system (you can find examples in basically all of recorded history). The people on top always try to use their power to put in rules to stay on top. I'm not convinced they somehow do it more or are more capable of doing it under capitalism than they were under the 18th century monarchies or socialism of the USSR and its satellite states or any of the other societal structures that have come and gone.
      - 0x262d 7y ago
        you're right that they will do it under any system of class society, with a minority expropriating class and a majority producing class, such as have existed since the invention of written history. that's why marx called for abolishing classes, absorbing everyone into the working class, replacing the structure with an egalitarian, democratic structure to decide how to invest all resources, as the only way out. russia didn't have the economic basis to get rid of basic material scarcity in 1917, and also was constantly under attack by capitalism, and so it devolved into an undemocratic mess until it reverted (now everything is even worse there).
    - gwright 7y ago
      That isn't a characteristic of "capitalism". Sounds more like a characteristic of any power structure.
      - nabnob 7y ago
        Sure, this would also have been true under feudalism. The important thing to recognize is that the ruling class - whoever owns property and is able to use that to exploit workers - will control the government and make laws that benefit them.
- danmaz74 7y ago
  "limited" limits the amount of money investors can lose. It doesn't protect from criminal liability.
  - cies 7y ago
    sorry have non-managing owners ever been targeted for crimes committed by their PtLds? nope they have not. and how about "personal business", yes, they are always targeted. this is a big differences... I think tomp is explaining this difference somewhere in this thread.
    - danmaz74 7y ago
      I think it all comes down to proving personal involvement with the crimes.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized. This is why I think the argument that a corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders is rank bullshit.
  - cies 7y ago
    This is why that arguments holds out! They do not have duty to anyone else because of this. And I'm okay with that as long as the stockholders are punished (no silly slap on the wrist style punishments) for crimes of their PtLds, as then the owners will force toe PtLds to have serious ethical standards.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >(Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized. I'd wager that at a societal level we roughly break even +/- a little bit in either direction. For every mega-corp abusing their legal status there's a few thousand small and medium businesses that do not have to worry (as much) about being sued into oblivion by some ambulance chaser over something that is not the result of malice. (I'm speaking about various private liability limiting corporate structures in general here.)
  - cies 7y ago
    So you think the climate going to shits is "roughly break even". Some have benefitted a lot from externalized costs wrt climate impact (made billions). And some have benefitted a little (fast transport modes becoming afordable for personal enjoyment).
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized Limited liability is directly as and exactly an externalization of costs; that's all that it is. It's one that evolved hand in hand with capitalism, sure, but if it exists in a non-capitalist system it has the same effect.

After all they are responsible for thousands of deaths. And they knew it. I don't know why they aren't in jail already.

cies 7y ago

That's because of the "limited" of private limited. (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized.

smhost 7y ago
is that inherent? i haven't read Capital, but this doesn't seem so much of an inherent problem with capitalism than it seems like a very dumb implementation liability protection.
- filleokus 7y ago
  What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    It's a feature when it's good faith efforts. It's very clearly a bug when it's used to evade no end of abuse, illegality and fraud, or to avoid paying the pollution cleanup. There probably needs to be some exceptional way in law to pierce the shell of limited liability and go after officers, perhaps even claw back from investors and shareholders.
    - cies 7y ago
      see my sibling comment
    - tomp 7y ago
      Limited liability only protects the capital of the shareholders, it doesn't protect the management of the company against criminal prosecution. (In practice, however, managers are only rarely put in jail, both because it's notoriously difficult to prove white-collar crime (except in few cases, like insider trading, which are the pursued with extra vigor), and because CEOs are generally rich and well connected... but the problem there is corruption, not some inherent feature/bug of the idea of limited liability company.)
      - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
        Perhaps I could have expressed it better. I meant to go for the financials. There are countless cases where the factory or mine has declined and instead of cleaning it up, as promised, they shutter the company. Then there's the countless cases where the company is doing something illegal. Take the proceeds back. We take money earned from theft and drug dealing, we take the stolen car from the person who innocently bought it. There's an offence of receiving stolen property. We don't take the millions from the execs who made millions pushing pharmaceuticals illegally, or the nuclear plant CEO and shareholder that has now, by dint of closure, given the job of decommissioning to the state - i.e. all of us. Once in a blue moon there's a criminal prosecution, but they just about always manage to stay wealthy. We need to rethink the limits of limited liability as it's become a convenient shield to hide all sorts of unethical, shitty and outright illegal behaviour behind.
        michaelt 7y ago
        I have always thought there should be a law that funds for things like mine clearup and pensions should be paid as the debt is incurred, and locked up so there's no way for the company to get at it.
      - cies 7y ago
        Comparing a PtLd to a "personal business" the PtLd shields the owners from criminal liability for crimes committed by the PtLd, while the "personal biz" provides no such protection. > Limited liability only protects the capital of the shareholders, No, it also protects shareholders from crimes the PtLd commits in order to "serve them". This is a main problem with PtLds imho.
  - smhost 7y ago
    i thought limited liabilites are a recent invention associated with neoliberalization of the 80s.
    - filleokus 7y ago
      They have been a thing here in Sweden since the mid 1800's, and probably even earlier elsewhere.
  - cies 7y ago
    i suggest that, when a PtLd or publicly traded company gets under criminal investigation, that all trade in shares gets suspended. when a fine/settlement is determined the trade is resumed but the fine is --for the part that cannot be paid in cash-- paid in equity while considering an adjusted valuation (post fine) of the company. This means the shareholders dilute to pay the fine/settlement. 1) the fine needs to be fair to the society (often we see these "slap on the wrist" fines for big corps, that's just disgusting and shows how much our democracies are disfunctional) 2) i suggest this because i want the shareholders to be pushing their companies to ethical behavior. 3) it is very important that companies are also held liable for unethical behavior in other countries, and/or even for unethical behavior of subsidiaries (the foxcons and the likes).
    - tomp 7y ago
      The company is going bankrupt, so the effective "fine" to the shareholders is 100% of their equity. That's the point - "limited liability" just means it can't be more than 100% of equity.
      - cies 7y ago
        Good point. I should have added: 4) When the fine is larger than the company's worth, collect it from the shareholders.
        tomp 7y ago
        Then noone would invest. Don't forget that often "shareholders" are index funds, pensioners, school endowments... No, the correct solution already exists - the criminal justice system going after criminals that did crime - it just doesn't work very well (especially when criminals are rich - e.g. Epstein - no need for "limited liability company").
        cies 7y ago
        there are so many ways a huge corp can commit crimes while individuals can all use the "plausible deniability" card. also often the crime is committed by the company as a whole, while no individual did something wrong. > Then noone would invest. i disagree, you just only invest in ethically sound endeavours. and thats exactly what im trying to achieve by my suggestions. starve bad-business from investment and/or people willing to take ownership. and make investors also do dilligence on the ethical side, instead of only an assessment of books+team+product+market.
- 0x262d 7y ago
  what capital says is that under capitalism, the ruling class will continually set up dumb rules, such as this one, in their favor, and they have a structural advantage in doing so, so are increasingly successful at it until it provokes revolt.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    They'll do that under any system (you can find examples in basically all of recorded history). The people on top always try to use their power to put in rules to stay on top. I'm not convinced they somehow do it more or are more capable of doing it under capitalism than they were under the 18th century monarchies or socialism of the USSR and its satellite states or any of the other societal structures that have come and gone.
    - 0x262d 7y ago
      you're right that they will do it under any system of class society, with a minority expropriating class and a majority producing class, such as have existed since the invention of written history. that's why marx called for abolishing classes, absorbing everyone into the working class, replacing the structure with an egalitarian, democratic structure to decide how to invest all resources, as the only way out. russia didn't have the economic basis to get rid of basic material scarcity in 1917, and also was constantly under attack by capitalism, and so it devolved into an undemocratic mess until it reverted (now everything is even worse there).
  - gwright 7y ago
    That isn't a characteristic of "capitalism". Sounds more like a characteristic of any power structure.
    - nabnob 7y ago
      Sure, this would also have been true under feudalism. The important thing to recognize is that the ruling class - whoever owns property and is able to use that to exploit workers - will control the government and make laws that benefit them.
danmaz74 7y ago
"limited" limits the amount of money investors can lose. It doesn't protect from criminal liability.
- cies 7y ago
  sorry have non-managing owners ever been targeted for crimes committed by their PtLds? nope they have not. and how about "personal business", yes, they are always targeted. this is a big differences... I think tomp is explaining this difference somewhere in this thread.
  - danmaz74 7y ago
    I think it all comes down to proving personal involvement with the crimes.
Gibbon1 7y ago
> (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized. This is why I think the argument that a corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders is rank bullshit.
- cies 7y ago
  This is why that arguments holds out! They do not have duty to anyone else because of this. And I'm okay with that as long as the stockholders are punished (no silly slap on the wrist style punishments) for crimes of their PtLds, as then the owners will force toe PtLds to have serious ethical standards.
dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>(Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized. I'd wager that at a societal level we roughly break even +/- a little bit in either direction. For every mega-corp abusing their legal status there's a few thousand small and medium businesses that do not have to worry (as much) about being sued into oblivion by some ambulance chaser over something that is not the result of malice. (I'm speaking about various private liability limiting corporate structures in general here.)
- cies 7y ago
  So you think the climate going to shits is "roughly break even". Some have benefitted a lot from externalized costs wrt climate impact (made billions). And some have benefitted a little (fast transport modes becoming afordable for personal enjoyment).
dragonwriter 7y ago
> (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized Limited liability is directly as and exactly an externalization of costs; that's all that it is. It's one that evolved hand in hand with capitalism, sure, but if it exists in a non-capitalist system it has the same effect.