4 ms·

i'd prefer it work like mario kart tbh, easier for the little co, harder for the big co

laumars 5y ago
That’s nearly impossible to do though because the bigger the company the more resources they have to figure out loopholes and then to exploit them. And the more profitable exploiting those loopholes becomes thus the more tempting it is to act first then beg for forgiveness later. It’s not even as if anti-competition laws have much effect these days. There’s a real culture in the US of acting dishonourably and then asking for forgiveness later. And more often than not, the punishment for breaking the law is significantly less than the profit earned from those unlawful acts. So they’re incentivised to be unlawful. This is why you need clear rules that equivalent regardless of income so everyone is clear where the line is drawn; but penalties that are weighted so that rule breaking cannot be gamified.
- wholinator2 5y ago
  I've had this (admittedly naive) idea for a while now: what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense? This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law. The main issue is determining how much money a corporation made based on a decision. This would require statistics and analysts and the minimum possible fine should be the minimum possible fine currently imposed by law. The whole shell corporation, off shore tax haven bullshit would probably make this infeasible but is there actually anything that can stop that? I don't have any good ideas, but I know corporations should not make money off breaking the law.
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    > what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense? That basically sounds like "actual damages", which is already the norm for calculating penalties in civil suits. > This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law. ... and "actual damages" is by definition 100%, though you can get higher than 100% by adding on "statutory damages." (You can see this as applied to copyright infringement in 17 USC §504: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504).
bsenftner 5y ago
Easily gamed: the big company creates a new, tiny company that owns assets but is buried in debt and loopholes any such regulation.
- verve_rat 5y ago
  Nah, a wholly owned subsidiary is not a magic shield against legal liability. Legislation with phrases like "beneficial ownership" can fix that stuff.

That’s nearly impossible to do though because the bigger the company the more resources they have to figure out loopholes and then to exploit them. And the more profitable exploiting those loopholes becomes thus the more tempting it is to act first then beg for forgiveness later. It’s not even as if anti-competition laws have much effect these days. There’s a real culture in the US of acting dishonourably and then asking for forgiveness later. And more often than not, the punishment for breaking the law is significantly less than the profit earned from those unlawful acts. So they’re incentivised to be unlawful. This is why you need clear rules that equivalent regardless of income so everyone is clear where the line is drawn; but penalties that are weighted so that rule breaking cannot be gamified.

wholinator2 5y ago
I've had this (admittedly naive) idea for a while now: what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense? This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law. The main issue is determining how much money a corporation made based on a decision. This would require statistics and analysts and the minimum possible fine should be the minimum possible fine currently imposed by law. The whole shell corporation, off shore tax haven bullshit would probably make this infeasible but is there actually anything that can stop that? I don't have any good ideas, but I know corporations should not make money off breaking the law.
- jcranmer 5y ago
  > what if there were a way to declare fines for corporate offenses based on a percentage of the money earned from committing such an offense? That basically sounds like "actual damages", which is already the norm for calculating penalties in civil suits. > This percentage could be greater than 100% to ensure it is never incentivized to break the law. ... and "actual damages" is by definition 100%, though you can get higher than 100% by adding on "statutory damages." (You can see this as applied to copyright infringement in 17 USC §504: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/504).

bsenftner 5y ago

Easily gamed: the big company creates a new, tiny company that owns assets but is buried in debt and loopholes any such regulation.

verve_rat 5y ago
Nah, a wholly owned subsidiary is not a magic shield against legal liability. Legislation with phrases like "beneficial ownership" can fix that stuff.