5 ms·

In any just world the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people tha

In any just world the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable I get the second part. But what's the utility of the first over a fine? Are you suggesting nationalizing Exxon? Or liquidating it?
- sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
  "all of its resources taken" would seem to require liquidation or putting those resources under a different management structure, possibly government directly or government appointed. What would Exxon be able to do once all of its resources have been repurposed? The company would be effectively dissolved even if not explicitly dissolved.
- frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
  Without defending their wording, I think the absolute best case for nationalizing a firm is one where the industry is based off of natural resources, vital to the public in the short term, and detrimental to the public in the long term.
- lordnacho 4y ago
  I think actually liquidating isn't so bad. Now and again nature strikes down a giant and a lot of other creatures benefit from it. It's actually a bit odd that when we invented corporations we didn't have some sort of catastrophe mechanism in there just to shake hands up now and again. I think society would find ways to become more resilient if we lived with possible corporate sudden death.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > liquidating isn't so bad You're guaranteeing either consolidation in an already oligopolistic sector, or a recession from the output drop caused by an inexperienced operator learning to scale to a major. > we didn't have some sort of catastrophe mechanism We do. They're fines and license revocations. Companies that can't afford their fines go bankrupt. Government gets cash; the stakeholders' clean up the mess. "Corporate death penalty" and related talking points are almost all about dismissing talk about bigger fines.
    - lordnacho 4y ago
      You're also guaranteeing that people will be able to try new things where the giant once stood. The real challenge is how to regulate the death rate.
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    The corporate death penalty. It's reasonable that nobody came up with it at the invention of the corporation, but America should absolutely have implemented one along with Citizens United.
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    We do, but corporations which are rich enough just bribe the government and gets bailouts or special treatments. If it was the people vs Exxon with private judges in private courts (judges which compete with one another on who's the best, not government officials with a comfy chair and a guaranteed lifetime of administering "justice"), it would be way harder to corrupt. That's why we need to decentralise our government power.
- ARandomerDude 4y ago
  Without oil things would be pretty bad around here, to say the least.
- acdha 4y ago
  Maybe not dissolved but fines aren't enough: if they're not big enough or likely enough, companies may take their chances and if they don't apply personally to the C-level some fraction of people will try to see if they can get rich and leave before the fine arrives. Perhaps that's something along the lines of turning them into highly-regulated public utilities. The big thing I'd focus on is basically real auditing & accountability: serious environmental assessments with full public disclosure, a blanket ban on political involvement so you avoid the case we have currently where someone [not inaccurately] thinks it's cheaper to give lobbyists $10M to avoid regulation which will cost them $100M, and criminal liability for anyone who knowingly tries to hide information or mislead the public.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> the company would be dissolved and all of its resources taken and put towards fixing the problems it intentionally created, and the people that knew about this be held personally liable I get the second part. But what's the utility of the first over a fine? Are you suggesting nationalizing Exxon? Or liquidating it?

sjsdaiuasgdia 4y ago
"all of its resources taken" would seem to require liquidation or putting those resources under a different management structure, possibly government directly or government appointed. What would Exxon be able to do once all of its resources have been repurposed? The company would be effectively dissolved even if not explicitly dissolved.
frgtpsswrdlame 4y ago
Without defending their wording, I think the absolute best case for nationalizing a firm is one where the industry is based off of natural resources, vital to the public in the short term, and detrimental to the public in the long term.
lordnacho 4y ago
I think actually liquidating isn't so bad. Now and again nature strikes down a giant and a lot of other creatures benefit from it. It's actually a bit odd that when we invented corporations we didn't have some sort of catastrophe mechanism in there just to shake hands up now and again. I think society would find ways to become more resilient if we lived with possible corporate sudden death.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > liquidating isn't so bad You're guaranteeing either consolidation in an already oligopolistic sector, or a recession from the output drop caused by an inexperienced operator learning to scale to a major. > we didn't have some sort of catastrophe mechanism We do. They're fines and license revocations. Companies that can't afford their fines go bankrupt. Government gets cash; the stakeholders' clean up the mess. "Corporate death penalty" and related talking points are almost all about dismissing talk about bigger fines.
  - lordnacho 4y ago
    You're also guaranteeing that people will be able to try new things where the giant once stood. The real challenge is how to regulate the death rate.
- lazyasciiart 4y ago
  The corporate death penalty. It's reasonable that nobody came up with it at the invention of the corporation, but America should absolutely have implemented one along with Citizens United.
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  We do, but corporations which are rich enough just bribe the government and gets bailouts or special treatments. If it was the people vs Exxon with private judges in private courts (judges which compete with one another on who's the best, not government officials with a comfy chair and a guaranteed lifetime of administering "justice"), it would be way harder to corrupt. That's why we need to decentralise our government power.
ARandomerDude 4y ago
Without oil things would be pretty bad around here, to say the least.
acdha 4y ago
Maybe not dissolved but fines aren't enough: if they're not big enough or likely enough, companies may take their chances and if they don't apply personally to the C-level some fraction of people will try to see if they can get rich and leave before the fine arrives. Perhaps that's something along the lines of turning them into highly-regulated public utilities. The big thing I'd focus on is basically real auditing & accountability: serious environmental assessments with full public disclosure, a blanket ban on political involvement so you avoid the case we have currently where someone [not inaccurately] thinks it's cheaper to give lobbyists $10M to avoid regulation which will cost them $100M, and criminal liability for anyone who knowingly tries to hide information or mislead the public.