4 ms·

Depends on the owner. If you're Larry Ellison rich, you'll place those types of assets under an operating corporation meant just for the purpose of managing eg

Depends on the owner. If you're Larry Ellison rich, you'll place those types of assets under an operating corporation meant just for the purpose of managing eg your yachts and attempt to have it step in front of liability risk so they can't very easily go after Ellison's other $109 billion in personal wealth. That corporation will carry very substantial insurance policies for just such risks. It's obviously incredibly expensive to own & operate a super yacht.

nerdponx 5y ago
This is frustrating because even a massive payout to insurance still doesn't cover the environmental externalities. There should be a different set of government-imposed penalties for environmental damage resulting from negligence, essentially a probabilistic Pigouvian tax.
- throwawayboise 5y ago
  How much money, paid to whom, would negate the environmental damage caused by this accident?
  - wilde 5y ago
    It’s a good question. One answer could be “enough money to act as a deterrent” and “who cares, the govt I guess”. EDIT: Could also do the student debt thing and have the fines pierce corporate veils and not be dismissible in bankruptcy.
  - rurp 5y ago
    Well nothing can negate an incident like this, but a lot can be done to mitigate the damage and disincentive this happening in the future. The government that has jurisdiction should heavily fine the person(s) responsible and direct the money towards the victims in the tanker and for environmental cleanup.
    - willcipriano 5y ago
      I suspect that additional incentives wouldn't have changed anyone's behavior here. Nobody involved wanted to crash.
      - nerdponx 5y ago
        Of course not. But the owner of the yacht and/or possibly the person who the owner hired to manage the yacht deemed that the expected loss due to their negligence wasn't big enough to warrant being not-negligent. Adding punitive "environmental fines" might tip the balance.

nerdponx 5y ago

This is frustrating because even a massive payout to insurance still doesn't cover the environmental externalities. There should be a different set of government-imposed penalties for environmental damage resulting from negligence, essentially a probabilistic Pigouvian tax.

throwawayboise 5y ago
How much money, paid to whom, would negate the environmental damage caused by this accident?
- wilde 5y ago
  It’s a good question. One answer could be “enough money to act as a deterrent” and “who cares, the govt I guess”. EDIT: Could also do the student debt thing and have the fines pierce corporate veils and not be dismissible in bankruptcy.
- rurp 5y ago
  Well nothing can negate an incident like this, but a lot can be done to mitigate the damage and disincentive this happening in the future. The government that has jurisdiction should heavily fine the person(s) responsible and direct the money towards the victims in the tanker and for environmental cleanup.
  - willcipriano 5y ago
    I suspect that additional incentives wouldn't have changed anyone's behavior here. Nobody involved wanted to crash.
    - nerdponx 5y ago
      Of course not. But the owner of the yacht and/or possibly the person who the owner hired to manage the yacht deemed that the expected loss due to their negligence wasn't big enough to warrant being not-negligent. Adding punitive "environmental fines" might tip the balance.