6 ms·
basing our economy's primary motivator on human greed isn't doing us many favors right now How would you fix it?
by p1esk 4y ago
basing our economy's primary motivator on human greed isn't doing us many favors right now
How would you fix it?
- moomoo3000 4y agoHeavy fines
- eurasiantiger 4y agoSo you think that a greed-based demotivator will truly impact greedy behavior in any positive way for society at large? The greedy will just find ways to hide their greed.
- moomoo3000 4y agoMake them work harder for it
- MonkeyMalarky 4y agoAh I see, we should not fine or punish criminals because otherwise they would just hide their criminal behaviour. Makes sense.
- warent 4y agoMonkeyMalarky says: malarky detected
- eurasiantiger 4y agoKudos, that is exactly what I’m saying. How is the current approach working in your opinion?
- warent 4y agoIt depends on what country you're talking about. In Burundi you'll probably just be captured and murdered. The USA has very high recitivism when we throw ex convicts out on the streets homeless and broke, which is not a punishment, it's just piss-poor social management. Norway has one of the lowestest recitivism rates in the world. They combine just punishments with actual correctional assistance for reintegration into society. Punishments with real correctional assistance and social resources is a proven successful combination.
- tomp 4y agoFines are just “cost of business” for companies. Either bankrupt the company (fine is 20% of yearly revenue) or jail the executives and everyone responsible.
- matheusmoreira 4y agoThen the fine isn't high enough. Make them higher. If they complain, make them even higher. These aren't human beings. These are corporations: inanimate, unfeeling entities worth billions of dollars whose only point in existing is making money at your personal expense. They should think 10 times before engaging in any destructive behavior such as "leaking" patient data to advertising companies. If they're not afraid, then the fines aren't high enough and must be increased.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y agoMy understanding is that if the fines ever become an existential threat then it motivates companies to commit criminal behavior but try to be sneakier about it, because in for a penny in for a pound. Of course we’re finding out repeatedly that no threatening fines don’t prevent that behavior either. :/ there’s a theoretical fine line where just enough fines will prevent such behavior but frankly I’m having a harder and harder time believing such rhetoric. Maybe it’s the ownership of such companies that are wrong. I highly doubt Cerebral would’ve made this decision in the first place if it was owned by regular people, especially regular mental health professionals.
- lynx23 4y agoHow do you ensure the penalty is actually higher then what the criminals managed to put aside? An uncle of an ex-girlfriend was put in jail for a MITM scheme in the construction bussiness. He was active for about 2 years until they got him. When I heard an estimate of how much he made, I went ahead and did the 24/7 hourly rate calculation for his jailtime. It was a 3 digit figure.
- idiotsecant 4y agoI'm not sure you can count it as income if it gets seized as part of prosecution.
- lynx23 4y agoThe point of the story was that the money actually never got seized.
- arrosenberg 4y agoBelieve it or not, I think putting white collar criminals in prison for lengthy sentences would dissuade them. Imagine if we were learning this news alongside pictures of the CEO, CFO and some board members in handcuffs being perp walked out of the office? The next start up would think way harder about security.
- p1esk 4y agoThe society would need to agree on the seriousness of the crime of selling personal information. Is it as serious as selling drugs? A burglary? Rape? Do you think the majority of the Americans would share your opinion on the matter? Keep in mind US incarceration rate is one of the highest in the world.
- arrosenberg 4y agoThe average person is pretty thirsty to see white collar criminals reigned in, yes.
- p1esk 4y agoI'm guessing a similar argument was made in support of the "war on drugs". Many drug dealers have been punished harshly. 50 years later, nothing has changed.
- arrosenberg 4y agoThe war on drugs was perpetuated by the Nixon and Reagan administrations to criminalize being antiwar and being black. Do you think that is what is happening here?
- p1esk 4y agoI strongly suspect the war on drugs was initiated mainly because drugs were ruining many lives (just like they do today), and that selling illegal drugs was perceived by the majority of population as a crime deserving a harsh punishment.
- mellosouls 4y agoI just followed the thread down from here and you seem to be so determined to undermine or counter every reasonable point that it could be suspected your original question here is motivated by ideological or other partial objection rather than genuine interest in the answer.
- p1esk 4y agoI have a genuine interest in the discussion. I, too, tried to be reasonable in my arguments.
- mellosouls 4y agoWell, thank you for the polite response here, I certainly wouldn't want or intend to discourage genuine good faith discussion; it just registered as otherwise motivated in that instance for me.
- shkkmo 4y agoIncrease fines to a point where the estimated prosecution rate makes the expected value of breaking the law negative. Directly punish executives, upper management, board members and large shareholders when their companies break the law rather than just fining the company. This could include fines, prohibitions from holding similar positions, and jail time. Stop commoditizing ownership by prohibiting ownership of companies by non-participants. This last one would have the largest impact but is the least likely.