4 ms·

>Do we want to punish regular people that happened to have some of that stock but didn't have any inkling of what was going on? Sure, why not? The market has b

>Do we want to punish regular people that happened to have some of that stock but didn't have any inkling of what was going on? Sure, why not? The market has been doing this itself every 10 years or so for a long time. It'd be just another form of bankruptcy. I have to say that it's truly odd to see someone lamenting a company going out of business on HN. I'm going to ignore the special pleading of "30K employees" and Walmart and the yada yada of extreme examples. Do those companies do what Moviepass did? Was Apple sufficiently punished in their wage-collusion case? I'd say no to both. Corporate malfeasance is essentially legal, at least in the US.

kbenson 5y ago
> Sure, why not? The market has been doing this itself every 10 years or so for a long time. It'd be just another form of bankruptcy. I have to say that it's truly odd to see someone lamenting a company going out of business on HN. We're talking about government action forcing a company out of business, so extra-market action. If it was the market, I would probably err on the side of "it does what it does, and people should have paid attention", but if it's Tuesday and everyone is none the wider and Wednesday the government says your place of employment no longer exists by fiat, that's something else. > I'm going to ignore the special pleading of "30K employees" and Walmart and the yada yada of extreme examples. Do those companies do what Moviepass did? Was Apple sufficiently punished in their wage-collusion case? I'd say no to both. We're talking about legislating new laws in this case, and not a law about Moviepass, but a law about any company that finds itself doing similar things. You can't ignore how it affects other companies and situations, because that's how it will be applied, exactly as it was written or interpreted. The market provides nuance, because it's really myriad people making their own decision. Laws don't, they are interpreted by regulators and or lawyers, judges and juries. Any nuance needed needs to be spelled out. > Corporate malfeasance is essentially legal, at least in the US. Yes, which is why we were discussing ways to combat it. It's not like my position could in any way be construed as "don't do anything". In all cases, I was just arguing for a different, more targeted way to punish the company, and perhaps one which didn't provide poor incentives for discoverability of the crime.

kbenson 5y ago

> Sure, why not? The market has been doing this itself every 10 years or so for a long time. It'd be just another form of bankruptcy. I have to say that it's truly odd to see someone lamenting a company going out of business on HN. We're talking about government action forcing a company out of business, so extra-market action. If it was the market, I would probably err on the side of "it does what it does, and people should have paid attention", but if it's Tuesday and everyone is none the wider and Wednesday the government says your place of employment no longer exists by fiat, that's something else. > I'm going to ignore the special pleading of "30K employees" and Walmart and the yada yada of extreme examples. Do those companies do what Moviepass did? Was Apple sufficiently punished in their wage-collusion case? I'd say no to both. We're talking about legislating new laws in this case, and not a law about Moviepass, but a law about any company that finds itself doing similar things. You can't ignore how it affects other companies and situations, because that's how it will be applied, exactly as it was written or interpreted. The market provides nuance, because it's really myriad people making their own decision. Laws don't, they are interpreted by regulators and or lawyers, judges and juries. Any nuance needed needs to be spelled out. > Corporate malfeasance is essentially legal, at least in the US. Yes, which is why we were discussing ways to combat it. It's not like my position could in any way be construed as "don't do anything". In all cases, I was just arguing for a different, more targeted way to punish the company, and perhaps one which didn't provide poor incentives for discoverability of the crime.