2 ms·

There is some logic to making the CEO a “legal synecdoche“ (catchy, I know!) for his/her company. No other person is better positioned to steer the company away

There is some logic to making the CEO a “legal synecdoche“ (catchy, I know!) for his/her company. No other person is better positioned to steer the company away from violating criminal laws, and CEOs tend to be paid handsomely for the trouble. Something like 400x what their average worker makes. Right now criminal penalties tend to just be the cost of doing business. Breaking the law isn’t scary, it’s a calculated risk. We have to think about whether this profit maximizing algorithm we are running as a society is good for us. Companies are basically paperclip maximizers, and at the expense of everything else. The only way things get solved isn’t by fighting tooth and nail for whack-a-mole laws which get watered down and repealed, it’s by changing the incentives. I’m not smart enough to know exactly what those incentives should be, but I am smart enough to know that “profit at all costs” is a pretty crappy one.

pjc50 4y ago
The important thing about a "limited company" is precisely that the CEO and all of the other staff aren't legally equivalent to the company. That would be a partnership. This is a very useful technology in de-risking running a big business. There isn't a good reason for making the board liable for ordinary line of business failures. > Right now criminal penalties tend to just be the cost of doing business. Breaking the law isn’t scary, it’s a calculated risk. This, on the other hand, is a serious problem. It's why it's important for SBF and anybody who can be proved to have responsible knowledge of the fraud at FTX to go to jail for a long time. But in general power and money make you above the law, and voters are unwilling to take enough of an active informed involvement to fix this.
- sobkas 4y ago
  > The important thing about a "limited company" is precisely that the CEO and all of the other staff aren't legally equivalent to the company. That would be a partnership. This is a very useful technology in de-risking running a big business. There isn't a good reason for making the board liable for ordinary line of business failures. > > Right now criminal penalties tend to just be the cost of doing business. Breaking the law isn’t scary, it’s a calculated risk. > This, on the other hand, is a serious problem. It's why it's important for SBF and anybody who can be proved to have responsible knowledge of the fraud at FTX to go to jail for a long time. In case of corporations problem is how influential they are. How they are able to capture regulators, bribe politicians to deregulate and how their size will cause rest of economy to collapse if they get penalties they deserve. Only time I have seen any real action taken, was when rich investors got scammed. Especially if done by someone outside of elites. Stealing from lower/middle class OK, maybe you get small fine. Taking something from billionaire? You will be astonished how hard book can hit, when thrown with enough political/financial motivation. > But in general power and money make you above the law It's capitalism, people with capital make the rules. > and voters are unwilling to take enough of an active informed involvement to fix this. The problem is that to be informed in such cases it takes lots of time, money and effort. A second neverending second job and it only takes one mistake to get screwed. In most cases even government agencies that are supposed to oversee it, can't do so because corporations do a lot to obfuscate, hide and misdirect(also agencies funding gets cut so they can't go after expensive targets). How you are expecting individual to do something a dedicated/paid/staffed agency can't do. Especially when media corporations/politicians/NGO(another can of worms) actively lie on corporations behalf. Also are you expect regulators to retire with government pay? They see what is going inside of corporations and they want their share.
disqard 4y ago
I think this might resonate with you: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you...
- janalsncm 4y ago
  Thank you for sharing this. The idea of corporations as paperclip maximizers has been floating around in my head for quite some time now and I’m glad I’m not the only one who has thought of this.

pjc50 4y ago

The important thing about a "limited company" is precisely that the CEO and all of the other staff aren't legally equivalent to the company. That would be a partnership. This is a very useful technology in de-risking running a big business. There isn't a good reason for making the board liable for ordinary line of business failures. > Right now criminal penalties tend to just be the cost of doing business. Breaking the law isn’t scary, it’s a calculated risk. This, on the other hand, is a serious problem. It's why it's important for SBF and anybody who can be proved to have responsible knowledge of the fraud at FTX to go to jail for a long time. But in general power and money make you above the law, and voters are unwilling to take enough of an active informed involvement to fix this.

sobkas 4y ago
> The important thing about a "limited company" is precisely that the CEO and all of the other staff aren't legally equivalent to the company. That would be a partnership. This is a very useful technology in de-risking running a big business. There isn't a good reason for making the board liable for ordinary line of business failures. > > Right now criminal penalties tend to just be the cost of doing business. Breaking the law isn’t scary, it’s a calculated risk. > This, on the other hand, is a serious problem. It's why it's important for SBF and anybody who can be proved to have responsible knowledge of the fraud at FTX to go to jail for a long time. In case of corporations problem is how influential they are. How they are able to capture regulators, bribe politicians to deregulate and how their size will cause rest of economy to collapse if they get penalties they deserve. Only time I have seen any real action taken, was when rich investors got scammed. Especially if done by someone outside of elites. Stealing from lower/middle class OK, maybe you get small fine. Taking something from billionaire? You will be astonished how hard book can hit, when thrown with enough political/financial motivation. > But in general power and money make you above the law It's capitalism, people with capital make the rules. > and voters are unwilling to take enough of an active informed involvement to fix this. The problem is that to be informed in such cases it takes lots of time, money and effort. A second neverending second job and it only takes one mistake to get screwed. In most cases even government agencies that are supposed to oversee it, can't do so because corporations do a lot to obfuscate, hide and misdirect(also agencies funding gets cut so they can't go after expensive targets). How you are expecting individual to do something a dedicated/paid/staffed agency can't do. Especially when media corporations/politicians/NGO(another can of worms) actively lie on corporations behalf. Also are you expect regulators to retire with government pay? They see what is going inside of corporations and they want their share.

disqard 4y ago

I think this might resonate with you: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you-broke-the-future.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2018/01/dude-you...

janalsncm 4y ago
Thank you for sharing this. The idea of corporations as paperclip maximizers has been floating around in my head for quite some time now and I’m glad I’m not the only one who has thought of this.