8 ms·

Good! Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible, and you have a chance of saving this wonderful experiment in democracy! Oh, and reverse the ruling

Good! Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible, and you have a chance of saving this wonderful experiment in democracy! Oh, and reverse the rulings that led to the Sacklers keeping their fortune

cscurmudgeon 4y ago
Can we go all the way and fine and punish the govt., politicians and regulators that should have been ultimately responsible but were in bed with the companies?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- r00fus 4y ago
  First the executives that likely bought off the regulators and pols need to be held accountable. Then the political class.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Why not both at first? Then we will see how quickly things get good.
    - r00fus 4y ago
      I like the idea, but divide & conquer is the best proven way to tackle a systemic issue.
- robocat 4y ago
  And then also punish everyone who voted for the politicians too, since they also bear responsibility. Or why not just jail everybody - we all have a responsibility somewhere along the line, even if it was just inaction.
  - cscurmudgeon 4y ago
    Ah, there it is, the sarcastic comment in defense of politicians. FYI, politicians have a duty to the country that voters don’t. Do voters get money and privilege? And if you don’t know, voting is anonymous.
    - robocat 4y ago
      I just noticed this which seemed very relevant: “In classic Soviet style, a number of officials who had little to do with the tragedy were either punished or fired, including the director of U.P.I. and the chairman of its sports club, the local Communist Party secretary, the chairmen of two workers’ unions, and a union inspector.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/has-an-old-soviet-mystery-at-last-been-solved https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/has-an-old-sov...
    - robocat 4y ago
      Not defending politicians. Just pointing out that if you want to regulate against all mistakes or fraud, then you end up over-regulated. If you chop the heads off the people doing things, you soon end up with nobody doing anything. Looking at software startups shows the value of failure (the EU tends to be more conservative, and that hasn’t worked out greatly for them), and it has been interesting watching the software culture spread to hardware (SpaceX). In the J&J case, there seems to be a paucity of facts showing harm, so punishing up the chain seems particularly egregious. > Do voters get money and privilege Are you in the US? Do you work in software? I would suspect a large majority of the world probably considers that you personally have buckets of money and privilege. I am not a citizen of the US, and I can list many ways that non-citizens (of the USA) are treated poorly, even in allied countries like New Zealand. Not complaining, we get other privileges. I am pointing out that every person’s reality depends on where they are standing in the world. Addendum: “The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero”, “crime is a policy choice”, “there are still arbitrarily severe options to control crime from where you are, from ‘increase the police budget’ to ‘ban alcohol totally’ to ‘implement an Orwellian dystopia.’.” https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...
NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
>Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible ... for what? These talc suits are (from my point of view) largely baseless and excellent proof of the proposition that all you need to win a jury decision is a group of sufficiently piteous plaintiffs.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  Are you ignorant of the facts of this case? Perhaps you’re pro asbestos? Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    A whole bunch of these cases assert that even pure talc (uncontaminated with asbestos) causes ovarian cancer, for which there is basically no evidence at all. Nor is there much evidence that talc actually ever contained much asbestos; especially bearing in mind that asbestos is naturally occurring at levels consistent with us inhaling several thousand fibers per day. >Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? Hmm, yes, I'm definitely the one showing the signs of bias here.
    - res0nat0r 4y ago
      I'd highly suggest reading this then: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnso... They knew of the increased risks and asbestos levels, and even when they finally agreed to stop selling talc in the usa, they continued to just sell it overseas until their supply ran out. This wasn't just a random mixup.
    - John23832 4y ago
      “A whole bunch of these cases” is hand waving that signals you didn’t read about the case at hand. J&J knew of asbestos contamination. That is what the current case asserts.

cscurmudgeon 4y ago

Can we go all the way and fine and punish the govt., politicians and regulators that should have been ultimately responsible but were in bed with the companies?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
r00fus 4y ago
First the executives that likely bought off the regulators and pols need to be held accountable. Then the political class.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Why not both at first? Then we will see how quickly things get good.
  - r00fus 4y ago
    I like the idea, but divide & conquer is the best proven way to tackle a systemic issue.
robocat 4y ago
And then also punish everyone who voted for the politicians too, since they also bear responsibility. Or why not just jail everybody - we all have a responsibility somewhere along the line, even if it was just inaction.
- cscurmudgeon 4y ago
  Ah, there it is, the sarcastic comment in defense of politicians. FYI, politicians have a duty to the country that voters don’t. Do voters get money and privilege? And if you don’t know, voting is anonymous.
  - robocat 4y ago
    I just noticed this which seemed very relevant: “In classic Soviet style, a number of officials who had little to do with the tragedy were either punished or fired, including the director of U.P.I. and the chairman of its sports club, the local Communist Party secretary, the chairmen of two workers’ unions, and a union inspector.” https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/has-an-old-soviet-mystery-at-last-been-solved https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/05/17/has-an-old-sov...
  - robocat 4y ago
    Not defending politicians. Just pointing out that if you want to regulate against all mistakes or fraud, then you end up over-regulated. If you chop the heads off the people doing things, you soon end up with nobody doing anything. Looking at software startups shows the value of failure (the EU tends to be more conservative, and that hasn’t worked out greatly for them), and it has been interesting watching the software culture spread to hardware (SpaceX). In the J&J case, there seems to be a paucity of facts showing harm, so punishing up the chain seems particularly egregious. > Do voters get money and privilege Are you in the US? Do you work in software? I would suspect a large majority of the world probably considers that you personally have buckets of money and privilege. I am not a citizen of the US, and I can list many ways that non-citizens (of the USA) are treated poorly, even in allied countries like New Zealand. Not complaining, we get other privileges. I am pointing out that every person’s reality depends on where they are standing in the world. Addendum: “The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero”, “crime is a policy choice”, “there are still arbitrarily severe options to control crime from where you are, from ‘increase the police budget’ to ‘ban alcohol totally’ to ‘implement an Orwellian dystopia.’.” https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fraud/ https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

NovemberWhiskey 4y ago

>Now hold execs financially and criminally responsible ... for what? These talc suits are (from my point of view) largely baseless and excellent proof of the proposition that all you need to win a jury decision is a group of sufficiently piteous plaintiffs.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
Are you ignorant of the facts of this case? Perhaps you’re pro asbestos? Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna948016
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  A whole bunch of these cases assert that even pure talc (uncontaminated with asbestos) causes ovarian cancer, for which there is basically no evidence at all. Nor is there much evidence that talc actually ever contained much asbestos; especially bearing in mind that asbestos is naturally occurring at levels consistent with us inhaling several thousand fibers per day. >Perhaps you’re just biased against anyone that seeks damages from soulless corporate crime syndicates like j&j? Hmm, yes, I'm definitely the one showing the signs of bias here.
  - res0nat0r 4y ago
    I'd highly suggest reading this then: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnson-and-a-new-war-on-consumer-protection https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/09/19/johnson-johnso... They knew of the increased risks and asbestos levels, and even when they finally agreed to stop selling talc in the usa, they continued to just sell it overseas until their supply ran out. This wasn't just a random mixup.
  - John23832 4y ago
    “A whole bunch of these cases” is hand waving that signals you didn’t read about the case at hand. J&J knew of asbestos contamination. That is what the current case asserts.