3 ms·

This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.

This seems like mostly schadenfreude. What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do, assuming that we have more than enough as a society to pay for it, i.e. the benefits of capitalism outweigh the losses. The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.

capableweb 6y ago
> What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do Because when you know you'll be held personally responsible, you'll act accordingly. If you feel like you can act any way you want without repercussion, then you'll automatically take more risks. Usually this is the way we justify the salaries of CEOs as well, "they are the ultimate responsible for everything in the company, so high salary is needed for that big risk".
- darkerside 6y ago
  > The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
  - capableweb 6y ago
    Repeating what you've already written (or outright copying it verbatim / quoting yourself) is hardly a effective strategy of making yourself better understood via the internet. You'll do better by expanding or simplifying your point of view instead.
    - darkerside 6y ago
      It seemed like you missed the part where I pointed out that there are other ways than monetary to prevent undesirable behavior. These people can be jailed or lose the ability to work in this industry. The situation is not an indictment of capitalism, it's an example of a poorly handled situation.
      - capableweb 6y ago
        Thanks for further clarifying! Being jailed or loosing the ability to work in a industry isn't necessarily better for everyone involved, if the person is actually normally good at what they do. A monetary fee for causing a disaster feels extra well in place for positions that people generally take for their monetary compensation as well (board, director, presidents, C* and so on).
EvanAnderson 6y ago
Individual accountability for corporate misdeeds might act as a deterrent to future misdeeds. Sarbaines-Oxley has some of this in it, if memory serves.
LeifCarrotson 6y ago
It matters because of the incentives and penalties that lead to capitalist companies making bad decisions. If someone runs a mine where a leak could cost society $1B, but they personally make $1M off the outputs, that's a huge net negative for society and a huge net positive for the mine owner. The government has lots of money but their capacity to absorb consequences is not infinite. If the actors in question were personally liable, had accurate estimates of risk and loss, and knew they would be personally liable, they would probablt make better decisions. As it is today, they know they can make lots of money and the risk assessment doesn't matter because they can just walk away. It matters to me because I want people to want to do things that are good for society and also good for them, rather than bad for society and good for them. We either need to do something like that or find a way to reintroduce morality to amoral, purely fiscally motivated corporations... fixing incentive structures so their fiscal motivations cause them to make better choices seems far easier to me.
voisin 6y ago
I think the word “potential” is optimistic. It 100% leads to moral hazard. We’ve seen this time and again in a variety of industries. If the parties involved - the actual people and not the corporations that are easily bankrupted and replaced with new corporations with the same people - are not held fully responsible then it will just keep happening.
Can_Not 6y ago
Imagine if a guy stole your $500 TV, did $500 worth of damage to your window to get it, then sold it for $100. After he was caught, instead of going to jail his insurance was ordered to pay you $200.

capableweb 6y ago

> What does it matter to you if they pay or we all do Because when you know you'll be held personally responsible, you'll act accordingly. If you feel like you can act any way you want without repercussion, then you'll automatically take more risks. Usually this is the way we justify the salaries of CEOs as well, "they are the ultimate responsible for everything in the company, so high salary is needed for that big risk".

darkerside 6y ago
> The only impact is potential moral hazard, but that could be prevented with loss of licenses, etc.
- capableweb 6y ago
  Repeating what you've already written (or outright copying it verbatim / quoting yourself) is hardly a effective strategy of making yourself better understood via the internet. You'll do better by expanding or simplifying your point of view instead.
  - darkerside 6y ago
    It seemed like you missed the part where I pointed out that there are other ways than monetary to prevent undesirable behavior. These people can be jailed or lose the ability to work in this industry. The situation is not an indictment of capitalism, it's an example of a poorly handled situation.
    - capableweb 6y ago
      Thanks for further clarifying! Being jailed or loosing the ability to work in a industry isn't necessarily better for everyone involved, if the person is actually normally good at what they do. A monetary fee for causing a disaster feels extra well in place for positions that people generally take for their monetary compensation as well (board, director, presidents, C* and so on).

EvanAnderson 6y ago

Individual accountability for corporate misdeeds might act as a deterrent to future misdeeds. Sarbaines-Oxley has some of this in it, if memory serves.

LeifCarrotson 6y ago

It matters because of the incentives and penalties that lead to capitalist companies making bad decisions. If someone runs a mine where a leak could cost society $1B, but they personally make $1M off the outputs, that's a huge net negative for society and a huge net positive for the mine owner. The government has lots of money but their capacity to absorb consequences is not infinite. If the actors in question were personally liable, had accurate estimates of risk and loss, and knew they would be personally liable, they would probablt make better decisions. As it is today, they know they can make lots of money and the risk assessment doesn't matter because they can just walk away. It matters to me because I want people to want to do things that are good for society and also good for them, rather than bad for society and good for them. We either need to do something like that or find a way to reintroduce morality to amoral, purely fiscally motivated corporations... fixing incentive structures so their fiscal motivations cause them to make better choices seems far easier to me.

voisin 6y ago

I think the word “potential” is optimistic. It 100% leads to moral hazard. We’ve seen this time and again in a variety of industries. If the parties involved - the actual people and not the corporations that are easily bankrupted and replaced with new corporations with the same people - are not held fully responsible then it will just keep happening.

Can_Not 6y ago

Imagine if a guy stole your $500 TV, did $500 worth of damage to your window to get it, then sold it for $100. After he was caught, instead of going to jail his insurance was ordered to pay you $200.