6 ms·
$1.26 million fine for someone with a $1.8 billion net worth is like fining a millionaire $700. You’re not going to change their behavior.
by 300bps 4y ago
$1.26 million fine for someone with a $1.8 billion net worth is like fining a millionaire $700.
You’re not going to change their behavior.
- gtirloni 4y ago$1.26m is still $1.26m. We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. How much did she get from this crypto deal? 400k? Then her work lost her almost 3x the amount she made. Is she willing to keep paying to work? I don't think so.
- Nextgrid 4y ago> We don't punish people based on their net worth but on the impact that their actions had. This means I should be able to steal at the supermarket and if caught, only pay for what I stole?
- d23 4y agoOr how about we actually put them in jail when they commit crimes? A poor person stealing from a supermarket certainly risks jail time.
- vorpalhex 4y agoNo, they don't. Felony theft requires in excess of hundreds of dollars of theft. Now go rob a supermarket with a firearm and that's a different story.
- anotherman554 4y agoYou can go to jail for misdemeanors, look up your state's laws.
- 300bps 4y agoIn my state, someone shoplifting less than $150 on their first offense is categorized as a summary offense which puts someone at risk of 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $300. Steal $1,000 though and that’s a 3rd degree felony with up to 7 years in jail and $15,000 fine.
- edwnj 4y agoThere is a day and night difference between stealing and fraud. And this is barely fraud btw. The only reason she is being fined because they they didn't file a form with the SEC for approval which would've meant they could only sell to "accredited investors". Don't you see they are lettering pissing at you. They think your too stupid to invest. You supposedly live in the most free country in the world but you need permission from the government to invest your friends company (or for your freind to ask u for investment). This is the world you want? parasite.
- gtirloni 4y agoShe actually got 250k from the deal and was fined 1.26m, is that enough?
- djschnei 4y agoShe was paid by the project founders 250k. You have no idea what she profited by pumping and dumping the shitcoin itself.
- lexapro 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine
- ZetaZero 4y agoThe fine is supposed to act as a deterrent, right?
- haasted 4y agoA completely unrelated observation, but some countries actually fine based on a person's net worth. Here is an example from Finland where someone received a 54.000 Euro speeding ticket: https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454 https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-31709454
- Brajeshwar 4y agoOff-topic & genuinely curious: How would you have typed/displayed if the amount was 54,000.42?
- haasted 4y ago54.000,42 https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-us/ https://www.languageediting.com/number-formatting-europe-vs-...
- Ekaros 4y ago54 000,42 is also not unreasonable alternative.
- jaclaz 4y agoYep, it is actually the recommended way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_grouping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Digit_groupi... It has been "ruined" by typewriters and computers, in hand writing the normal way here was to use a "high" dot to separate thousands and the comma for decimals.
- Brajeshwar 4y agoAh! Nice. So, all the mathematicians walked into a bar and got into a fight.
- blululu 4y agoNo we also add in a punitive fine as a deterrent so the crime doesn’t happen again in the future. Punishment should be equal which means high net worth criminals should pay proportional punitive fines.
- hnbad 4y ago_You_ don't. Others do: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine Specifically, that's based on (aggregate) income, not net worth, but it still intends to be more proportionate to avoid making crimes legal for rich people. There was actually a recent case in Germany of a wealthy man taking to court over a traffic violation fine, the fine being upheld in court and subsequently corrected to a much larger fine because the original fine was based on a much lower estimate of his income and by challenging it he had to reveal his actual income. Of course the problem with linear scales like this is that wealth doesn't scale linearly (e.g. the practical difference between an income of $10k and $0 is much greater than between $10k and $20k) but it still seems more reasonable than "punishing based on the impact" alone if it is after all intended to be a punishment (and it clearly is, otherwise we wouldn't have prisons).
- listless 4y agoShe’s not a criminal. She got paid to promote something and she did. Not disclosing it is an ethical dilemma and she’s paid in much more than she made. Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that.
- windexh8er 4y agoI don't see it that way. If your job is to promote things part of your process, with respect to ascertaining the validity of that work, should be in a wide range of ethics. She knows she has fans that will believe anything she says which is part of the reason why she's paid to promote things. But if all of the sudden a bleach company is paying Kim to promote drinking it to prevent and cure cancer it might feel different. Kim is still directly hurting people through her brand, but in a different way. > Also, if you buy something just because a celebrity told you to, you have poor decision making skills and it’s worth your while to work on that. While likely unpopular I wish there were some decent studies on this topic. Like age demographics, screen time in social media, income, schooling, and other background information on the people that fit into this charade. I think this would shed some light on the predatory marketing Kim, potentially, engages in - knowingly or not.
- notakio 4y agoThe SEC has real, legal teeth. In this case, Ms. Kardashian took a legal settlement to avoid a criminal verdict. In a prior job, a mutual fund startup, I was restricted from purchasing stocks unless I ran it through an internal company process first, then ran it by the SEC, all because, as sysadmin, I had access to "live stock feed", which is considered privileged information. If I had a hunch to buy something, by the time I ran that potential purchase through those two processes and got permission, generally the window of opportunity had closed. Of course, I knew this because it was made explicitly clear to me when I took the job, and when we went through the paperwork to setup the live stock feed. Still, my lack of awareness would not have been a valid excuse, had I crossed the line with the SEC, and the potential penalties were very real, and very steep. Then again, I didn't have vast resources to keep on-staff legal personnel to manage my interactions with them, nor was I a celebrity or politician, so all the rules apply to me, all the time, where that might not be the case in every situation.
- pid-1 4y agoArticle says she got paid $250,000 for the endorsement, so she lost 5x that amount.
- wongarsu 4y agoIf the SEC only fines 5x the profit, they have to fine at least 20% of offenses to make this an unprofitable business practice (never mind punishing it). Does the SEC even have the manpower for that?
- 300bps 4y agoAnd if you steal $5 from a grocery store if it's your first offense, in my state it's a summary offense punishable by up to 90 days in jail and fine of up to $300 (60x the amount). The problem with these crimes is that you'll get away with it some multiplier of times you get caught. So if you can do it 20 times and get caught once it doesn't matter if you lost 5x the amount. You're still ahead and can chalk the little fines up to the cost of doing illegal business.