9 ms·

I fully support this. Next time an Exxon spill leaks oil into the ocean, we should gather up our teachers and mail carriers whose pensions are invested in oil a

I fully support this. Next time an Exxon spill leaks oil into the ocean, we should gather up our teachers and mail carriers whose pensions are invested in oil and put them in jail. That'll really show those polluters! Sarcasm aside, this strikes me as the kind of vague solution waving that sounds great on paper and has no connection to reality.

pmiller2 7y ago
The correct implementation of this is to apply more personal liability to executives and directors making the decisions that lead to oil getting dumped in the ocean. When decision makers go to prison as a result of negligently bad decisions, they will not be as negligent as often. Is that specific enough?
- pjc50 7y ago
  Yes. But that's nothing to do with the normal meaning of limited liability.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Yes, it does. Limited liability protects directors of a company as well as shareholders.
- Noos 7y ago
  But we already have the idea of piercing the corporate veil though. I'm not sure needing to change the structure of limited liability matters as much as formalizing and unifying that concept.
  - pmiller2 7y ago
    Either way, what’s needed is to increase the level of liability on those that control the actions of corporations. What you call it doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.
pessimizer 7y ago
I don't understand the sarcasm: if teachers and mail carriers were liable when their pensions were invested in terrible things, they would demand more say in where their pensions were invested.
- vorpalhex 7y ago
  The police were unkind when they cuffed Ms. Wilson, and they ended her screaming and resisting by smacking her head into the classroom door. "That'll be enough of that! This is for all those dolphins you murdered with your oil spill!" The kindergarteners looked on in horror - they liked dolphins. They couldn't believe their teacher was a dolphin killer. "I swear, I just chose the default fund allocation! My rep said it was the most stable set of funds for retiring at 65!" Ms. Wilson made no attempt to choke back her tears. The officer was having none of that nonsense. "You should have been an active investor in your own future and chosen the 35/5 fund instead. I guess you'll have plenty of time to read up on retirement planning in the clink."
  - luckydata 7y ago
    I’m sure sarcasm will fix the irreparable damage corporations are doing to society and the planet.
    - bpt3 7y ago
      It will do just as much good as the suggestion to hold individuals responsible for decisions they didn't make and in some cases have absolutely no control over (including the decision to invest in the company).
      - luckydata 7y ago
        What if investing in a company was in fact an act that bears consequences? Would it make people invest more wisely in things that are less damaging? Would we hold corporations to a higher standard of responsibility? A faceless corporation won't keep you warm at night, no matter how much love you profess to them.
amelius 7y ago
I'm totally OK with this if the ratio of punishment equals the ratio of the participation. I.e. teachers go to jail for a few minutes, whereas major shareholders go to jail for a few years or decades.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  That doesn't really create the desired level of deterrence though. It's often the case that very large corporations don't have major shareholders, they're majority-owned by widely-held funds, i.e. teachers' retirement accounts. The underlying problem is essentially inherent to diversified investment strategies -- nobody owns enough of anything to actually care about that corporation in particular, so then shareholders can't act as a check on corporate behavior because none of them are paying attention.
LeifCarrotson 7y ago
If shareholders were criminally (or financially) liable for harm, the thing that would 'show those polluters' would be the way a market panic dumped their stock long before a spill occurred. No one would want much XOM stock in their pension portfolio because they take big risks, shipping and piping toxic substances in ways that frequently cause major disasters. Their business wouldn't be completely destroyed, but they'd have an incentive to take fewer risks - They finally phased out single-hull tankers in US waters 25 years after the Valdez, if this proposed liability was present 1989 they might not have chartered that ship for fear of a shareholder exodus.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Investors don't have enough information about daily operations to make those decisions accurately. You'd just end up making it too risky to invest in anything, and our economy as a whole would suffer. The way to ensure safety is through regulation and regulatory enforcement, not by relying on everybody's grandpa to thoroughly vet the safety practices of Exxon before reallocating his IRA.

pmiller2 7y ago

The correct implementation of this is to apply more personal liability to executives and directors making the decisions that lead to oil getting dumped in the ocean. When decision makers go to prison as a result of negligently bad decisions, they will not be as negligent as often. Is that specific enough?

pjc50 7y ago
Yes. But that's nothing to do with the normal meaning of limited liability.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Yes, it does. Limited liability protects directors of a company as well as shareholders.
Noos 7y ago
But we already have the idea of piercing the corporate veil though. I'm not sure needing to change the structure of limited liability matters as much as formalizing and unifying that concept.
- pmiller2 7y ago
  Either way, what’s needed is to increase the level of liability on those that control the actions of corporations. What you call it doesn’t matter, the effect is the same.

pessimizer 7y ago

I don't understand the sarcasm: if teachers and mail carriers were liable when their pensions were invested in terrible things, they would demand more say in where their pensions were invested.

vorpalhex 7y ago
The police were unkind when they cuffed Ms. Wilson, and they ended her screaming and resisting by smacking her head into the classroom door. "That'll be enough of that! This is for all those dolphins you murdered with your oil spill!" The kindergarteners looked on in horror - they liked dolphins. They couldn't believe their teacher was a dolphin killer. "I swear, I just chose the default fund allocation! My rep said it was the most stable set of funds for retiring at 65!" Ms. Wilson made no attempt to choke back her tears. The officer was having none of that nonsense. "You should have been an active investor in your own future and chosen the 35/5 fund instead. I guess you'll have plenty of time to read up on retirement planning in the clink."
- luckydata 7y ago
  I’m sure sarcasm will fix the irreparable damage corporations are doing to society and the planet.
  - bpt3 7y ago
    It will do just as much good as the suggestion to hold individuals responsible for decisions they didn't make and in some cases have absolutely no control over (including the decision to invest in the company).
    - luckydata 7y ago
      What if investing in a company was in fact an act that bears consequences? Would it make people invest more wisely in things that are less damaging? Would we hold corporations to a higher standard of responsibility? A faceless corporation won't keep you warm at night, no matter how much love you profess to them.

amelius 7y ago

I'm totally OK with this if the ratio of punishment equals the ratio of the participation. I.e. teachers go to jail for a few minutes, whereas major shareholders go to jail for a few years or decades.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
That doesn't really create the desired level of deterrence though. It's often the case that very large corporations don't have major shareholders, they're majority-owned by widely-held funds, i.e. teachers' retirement accounts. The underlying problem is essentially inherent to diversified investment strategies -- nobody owns enough of anything to actually care about that corporation in particular, so then shareholders can't act as a check on corporate behavior because none of them are paying attention.

LeifCarrotson 7y ago

If shareholders were criminally (or financially) liable for harm, the thing that would 'show those polluters' would be the way a market panic dumped their stock long before a spill occurred. No one would want much XOM stock in their pension portfolio because they take big risks, shipping and piping toxic substances in ways that frequently cause major disasters. Their business wouldn't be completely destroyed, but they'd have an incentive to take fewer risks - They finally phased out single-hull tankers in US waters 25 years after the Valdez, if this proposed liability was present 1989 they might not have chartered that ship for fear of a shareholder exodus.

kube-system 7y ago
Investors don't have enough information about daily operations to make those decisions accurately. You'd just end up making it too risky to invest in anything, and our economy as a whole would suffer. The way to ensure safety is through regulation and regulatory enforcement, not by relying on everybody's grandpa to thoroughly vet the safety practices of Exxon before reallocating his IRA.