3 ms·

Yes, this is the right analysis. Baby powder is < 0.02% of JJ revenue. The entire consumer segment is only ~14B (again, in revenue). An 8B loss is very punish

Yes, this is the right analysis. Baby powder is < 0.02% of JJ revenue. The entire consumer segment is only ~14B (again, in revenue). An 8B loss is very punishing for something that produced 0.02% of revenue (and probably wasn’t high margin?) https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/17/talc-baby-powder-concerns-setback-for-jjs-consumer-products-unit.html https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/12/17/talc-baby-powder-concern... Oldish source

runarberg 4y ago
I think this is ignoring the criminal part of criminal negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got hurt. Justice isn’t served by merely nullifying the venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate profits way beyond what your little venture would have given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime is severe enough. I’ll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were imprisoned. A true justice system shouldn’t treat a malicious company any differently than a criminal gang.
- fauxpause_ 4y ago
  > I’ll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were imprisoned. I can’t tell what you’re trying to say. If people consider it huge, that means it’s a good punishment, no? > I think this is ignoring the criminal part of criminal negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got hurt. Justice isn’t served by merely nullifying the venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate profits way beyond what your little venture would have given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime is severe enough. Putting thousands of people out work because a small segment of a business did a bad thing isn’t wise
  - runarberg 4y ago
    What makes a good punishment is a pretty massive debate within philosophy. I’m of the opinion that you can easily tell that a punishment is too lax when the victims, the near community around the victims, and/or a large majority of the society in which the victims or the perpetrators reside, that if none of these get a sense of justice from the punishment, than the punishment is insufficient. A company paying a portion of their annual profit over two decades for knowingly risking cancer onto their customers probably fails every single of these groups. > Putting thousands of people out work because a small segment of a business did a bad thing isn’t wise This is a hyperbole. Courts can split up companies, they can remove leaderships, they can confiscate the stocks, heck, if you are so worried about the workers, perhaps you should ask your legislator to introduce a law where a malicious company can be ordered to reorganize as a coop and given to the workers.
    - fauxpause_ 4y ago
      > This is a hyperbole. Courts can split up companies, they can remove leaderships, they can confiscate the stocks, heck, if you are so worried about the workers, perhaps you should ask your legislator to introduce a law where a malicious company can be ordered to reorganize as a coop and given to the workers. I’m confused how you can accuse me of hyperbole for stating that putting thousands of workers out of work is bad while it was you that suggesting disbanding the company for big enough crimes. Splitting up a company isn’t really a punishment. Probably good for competition though. Taking away stock is just a fine. Reorganizing as a coop is just kind of dumb. > A company paying a portion of their annual profit over two decades for knowingly risking cancer onto their customers probably fails every single of these groups. How about 2,000x the annual revenue generated from the activity?
      - runarberg 4y ago
        > How about 2,000x the annual revenue generated from the activity? No. Companies should not be allowed to do crime, and the punishment should be proportional to the harm they caused, not to the revenue hypothesized by the scheme. A crime syndicate does not have to pay 2000 times the amount they would have gained by smuggling drugs, no their mules go to jail, their CEO is hunted down by the military, and their whole organization is disbanded. Nobody cares about the workers in this instance (I wonder why). > Reorganizing as a coop is just kind of dumb. Yeah, Well, You know, that’s just like, your opinion, man.

runarberg 4y ago

I think this is ignoring the criminal part of criminal negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got hurt. Justice isn’t served by merely nullifying the venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate profits way beyond what your little venture would have given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime is severe enough. I’ll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were imprisoned. A true justice system shouldn’t treat a malicious company any differently than a criminal gang.

fauxpause_ 4y ago
> I’ll make another ill guided attempt at an analogy. If J&J was a criminal gang, and decided to venture into a new smuggling scheme. Then got caught, but as a punishment, they only had to pay a portion of their annual profits in a fine, but people would consider it huge because it was way bigger than what this smuggling scheme would have given them. Additionally no bosses were imprisoned. I can’t tell what you’re trying to say. If people consider it huge, that means it’s a good punishment, no? > I think this is ignoring the criminal part of criminal negligence. A crime was committed, innocent people got hurt. Justice isn’t served by merely nullifying the venture in a capital sense. No, a true justice punishes the responsible by stripping away their freedom. In a corporate sense this means taking away all your corporate profits way beyond what your little venture would have given you, imprisoning the people responsible (including CEOs), and even disbanding the whole company if the crime is severe enough. Putting thousands of people out work because a small segment of a business did a bad thing isn’t wise
- runarberg 4y ago
  What makes a good punishment is a pretty massive debate within philosophy. I’m of the opinion that you can easily tell that a punishment is too lax when the victims, the near community around the victims, and/or a large majority of the society in which the victims or the perpetrators reside, that if none of these get a sense of justice from the punishment, than the punishment is insufficient. A company paying a portion of their annual profit over two decades for knowingly risking cancer onto their customers probably fails every single of these groups. > Putting thousands of people out work because a small segment of a business did a bad thing isn’t wise This is a hyperbole. Courts can split up companies, they can remove leaderships, they can confiscate the stocks, heck, if you are so worried about the workers, perhaps you should ask your legislator to introduce a law where a malicious company can be ordered to reorganize as a coop and given to the workers.
  - fauxpause_ 4y ago
    > This is a hyperbole. Courts can split up companies, they can remove leaderships, they can confiscate the stocks, heck, if you are so worried about the workers, perhaps you should ask your legislator to introduce a law where a malicious company can be ordered to reorganize as a coop and given to the workers. I’m confused how you can accuse me of hyperbole for stating that putting thousands of workers out of work is bad while it was you that suggesting disbanding the company for big enough crimes. Splitting up a company isn’t really a punishment. Probably good for competition though. Taking away stock is just a fine. Reorganizing as a coop is just kind of dumb. > A company paying a portion of their annual profit over two decades for knowingly risking cancer onto their customers probably fails every single of these groups. How about 2,000x the annual revenue generated from the activity?
    - runarberg 4y ago
      > How about 2,000x the annual revenue generated from the activity? No. Companies should not be allowed to do crime, and the punishment should be proportional to the harm they caused, not to the revenue hypothesized by the scheme. A crime syndicate does not have to pay 2000 times the amount they would have gained by smuggling drugs, no their mules go to jail, their CEO is hunted down by the military, and their whole organization is disbanded. Nobody cares about the workers in this instance (I wonder why). > Reorganizing as a coop is just kind of dumb. Yeah, Well, You know, that’s just like, your opinion, man.