6 ms·

The cost for anything like this should always be the cost of cleaning up the entire mess it created and compensating the humans harmed by it and covering their

The cost for anything like this should always be the cost of cleaning up the entire mess it created and compensating the humans harmed by it and covering their lifetime medical bills. $1billion sounds a tad low for doing any of that given the world wide impact. Its a bad deal.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rqtwteye 3y ago
Agreed. Most of the money probably doesn’t even go to the people who got damaged.
BizarroLand 3y ago
Yeah, it's a "make the victims feel like they got some justice" money but not anywhere near enough to actually solve the problem or to repay the damages. They're basically getting off scott free, and they made tens of billions of dollars in profit for only having to pay 1 billion in damages.
wmeredith 3y ago
Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket for these massive multinational corporations that have been in business for decades.
- politician 3y ago
  > a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, supports other families). It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    There are tons of Kevlar alternatives, on cca same level of performance these days. Just because some company made a good product once or twice will make them invincible against the law with all the rest they ever did? You forgot 'think about the children' part, but in this case, it actually goes against that fucked up corporations. We may have to see half of our kids infertile in a decade or two and shitload of birth defects that can bankrupt any health services (in case of US rather half of population), no amount of thinking about Kevlar or Goretex (for which there are tons of great alternatives too and I stopped using their stuff in mountains long time ago) is going to fix that
  - phkahler 3y ago
    Nah, the assets would be auctioned off. The shareholders would be screwed. But the employees would largely stick around and do stuff under new ownership. It would still be a shock, but after a few of these you'd see investors not willing to allow that kind of thing to happen because it's a huge financial risk to them. Not a great solution, but also not as ruinous as you might think. Companies shouldn't be "too big to fail" and most aren't.
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
    - politician 3y ago
      The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
- briantakita 3y ago
  Perhaps the death penalty for the execs would cause some real reform. Japanese culture had the concept to Seppuku when someone brought shame to their position. They seem to take their jobs seriously.
hospitalJail 3y ago
Back when I was 19 and an anarchist, I was always critical of LLC laws. I probably still am. I believe the judicial system does do the fine as you mentioned, but the prosecutors have to be realistic and settle out of court at the risk a skeptical judge/jury. Without LLC laws, you could go after personal ownership too. Privately owned company means there is a few billionaires to have their wealth confiscated. Publicly, our 401ks empty + risk of losing our homes. Isn't that insane to think about? What would a world look like if that was the case. Would companies be incredibly responsible? Would investors be incredibly responsible? I don't claim to say this is the best economic system, but it might solve our climate crisis by forcing people to be liable for themselves and what they own.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  I wonder if we could have fractional death penalty. Some lifetime counter on your responsibility of deaths by companies you own. When certain threshold let's say 0.5 is reached, it will be carried out when ever you are apprehended.
- lesuorac 3y ago
  I'm not sure that the LLC laws are exactly the problem. I think it's the fact that you can get a company incorporated to do pretty much a vague _anything_ is the problem. There should be an ounce of thought by the State as to if what the person wants a company for is actually useful for society before granting them immunity. The second major issue is that the State is never willing to dissolve a company once it reaches some size no matter how much wrong doing it does. Like Walls Fargo willfully creating fake accounts to charge consumers money should've just be an instant disqualification for a banking license.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do. Second, incorporation does not protect the business, it protects investors. Without it, investors would be general partners and would be personally liable for anything the business does, including all debts and torts, even if they had no active role in running the business. Third, where owners of a corporation or LLC do participate in running a business, they often can be held personally liable for the debts and torts of the business. This is called “piercing the corporate veil” and happens all the time in lawsuits against small businesses.
stcroixx 3y ago
They are not absolved of their remediation responsibilities, which are separate from these claims.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rqtwteye 3y ago

Agreed. Most of the money probably doesn’t even go to the people who got damaged.

BizarroLand 3y ago

Yeah, it's a "make the victims feel like they got some justice" money but not anywhere near enough to actually solve the problem or to repay the damages. They're basically getting off scott free, and they made tens of billions of dollars in profit for only having to pay 1 billion in damages.

wmeredith 3y ago

Justice served would be jail time for execs or a corporate death penalty. Levying a fine means it's just a cost of doing business. And a billion dollars sounds like a lot, but it's a drop in the bucket for these massive multinational corporations that have been in business for decades.

politician 3y ago
> a corporate death penalty So, no more Kevlar for police protection? The problem with the idea of a corporate death penalty is that it would shutter the corporation, shock the supply chain for critical materials, terminate the employment of thousands of people, and devastate their communities (e.g. because employees have families and those families consume food and stuff from the local economy which, in turn, supports other families). It's obvious why we haven't adopted it as a viable punishment.
- saiya-jin 3y ago
  There are tons of Kevlar alternatives, on cca same level of performance these days. Just because some company made a good product once or twice will make them invincible against the law with all the rest they ever did? You forgot 'think about the children' part, but in this case, it actually goes against that fucked up corporations. We may have to see half of our kids infertile in a decade or two and shitload of birth defects that can bankrupt any health services (in case of US rather half of population), no amount of thinking about Kevlar or Goretex (for which there are tons of great alternatives too and I stopped using their stuff in mountains long time ago) is going to fix that
- phkahler 3y ago
  Nah, the assets would be auctioned off. The shareholders would be screwed. But the employees would largely stick around and do stuff under new ownership. It would still be a shock, but after a few of these you'd see investors not willing to allow that kind of thing to happen because it's a huge financial risk to them. Not a great solution, but also not as ruinous as you might think. Companies shouldn't be "too big to fail" and most aren't.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Chapter 11 bankruptcies allow corporations to continue operating. They just hose the investors.
  - politician 3y ago
    The shareholders aren't the ones manufacturing the PFAS. I think that I want the operating unit to be halted and dismantled. Not the shareholders, management, or other units. So, I don't think Chapter 11 is the right solution.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      I think Chapter 11 was just meant as an example of a "closed" company continuing to operate. No reason we can't dismantle Dupont in a similar fashion.
briantakita 3y ago
Perhaps the death penalty for the execs would cause some real reform. Japanese culture had the concept to Seppuku when someone brought shame to their position. They seem to take their jobs seriously.

hospitalJail 3y ago

Back when I was 19 and an anarchist, I was always critical of LLC laws. I probably still am. I believe the judicial system does do the fine as you mentioned, but the prosecutors have to be realistic and settle out of court at the risk a skeptical judge/jury. Without LLC laws, you could go after personal ownership too. Privately owned company means there is a few billionaires to have their wealth confiscated. Publicly, our 401ks empty + risk of losing our homes. Isn't that insane to think about? What would a world look like if that was the case. Would companies be incredibly responsible? Would investors be incredibly responsible? I don't claim to say this is the best economic system, but it might solve our climate crisis by forcing people to be liable for themselves and what they own.

Ekaros 3y ago
I wonder if we could have fractional death penalty. Some lifetime counter on your responsibility of deaths by companies you own. When certain threshold let's say 0.5 is reached, it will be carried out when ever you are apprehended.
lesuorac 3y ago
I'm not sure that the LLC laws are exactly the problem. I think it's the fact that you can get a company incorporated to do pretty much a vague _anything_ is the problem. There should be an ounce of thought by the State as to if what the person wants a company for is actually useful for society before granting them immunity. The second major issue is that the State is never willing to dissolve a company once it reaches some size no matter how much wrong doing it does. Like Walls Fargo willfully creating fake accounts to charge consumers money should've just be an instant disqualification for a banking license.
- bdowling 3y ago
  First, a corporation can’t do anything that an individual can’t do. Second, incorporation does not protect the business, it protects investors. Without it, investors would be general partners and would be personally liable for anything the business does, including all debts and torts, even if they had no active role in running the business. Third, where owners of a corporation or LLC do participate in running a business, they often can be held personally liable for the debts and torts of the business. This is called “piercing the corporate veil” and happens all the time in lawsuits against small businesses.

stcroixx 3y ago

They are not absolved of their remediation responsibilities, which are separate from these claims.