For the sake of argument, I think that in order to compare the dollar amounts and assume that's the "worth" of the infraction, then perhaps it is assuming how m

For the sake of argument, I think that in order to compare the dollar amounts and assume that's the "worth" of the infraction, then perhaps it is assuming how much deterrence there is per dollar. Is it plausible that abstract financial violations cost more to deter, because people don't have instinctive aversion to them? I don't see what the relative amount has to do with anything. The fines for worker safety should maybe be higher, but there's no particular relationship to financial regulations. If you think that "real people weren't hurt" by financial violations, then does that mean the penalty should be zero?