3 ms·
Clearly this is meant to be silly but if we take it seriously - Why shouldn't those who stand to benefit from ill-gotten gains be those who suffer the pain whe
by idiotsecant 5y ago
Clearly this is meant to be silly but if we take it seriously -
Why shouldn't those who stand to benefit from ill-gotten gains be those who suffer the pain when the company breaks the law? At least in a proportional way? If, for example, a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock for all stakeholders it would align market price with shadiness of company executives. It would suck getting burned by an executive doing something nefarious you didn't know about but it wouldn't take many events like that to make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place.
- Chris2048 5y agoBecause while benefit and control are closely correlated, it's sometimes (purposefully) the case that you can have benefit, without control (or oversight). > a felony conviction of a company for fraud incurred a penalty of 10% of the value of the company stock Doesn't this sort of happen anyway? How would you prevent it increasing again; are you literally collecting a fee from stockholders (like a kind of anti-dividend)? > it would align market price with shadiness of company executives Then corps would just invest more in opaqueness and deniability (which they already do now). Corporations are known for being all PR public face. Plus, it would be easier to tank competition with slander and gossip - making investors even more scandal adverse (but not necessarily more ethically aligned) > make some very powerful people very interested in ensuring that ethical leadership was in place Or that there's an easy scapegoat lined up.