3 ms·

I have the feeling, FTC doesnt want to destroy business that has a theoretically valid model, rather it [FTC] is interested in the illegal behaviours exhibited.

by rolph 3y ago

I have the feeling, FTC doesnt want to destroy business that has a theoretically valid model, rather it [FTC] is interested in the illegal behaviours exhibited. fines should be of magnitude that discourages the behaviour, but should not be so large as to be an instant kill for what could be a legal business if not for the behaviour. there should be a negative reinforcement that provides a window of opportunity to learn and adapt, or else fold up.

shkkmo 3y ago
The negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that so your justification falls flat. I also really don't see the economic harm in killing robocall companies. It seems like a net win to me.
- rolph 3y ago
  not trying to justify low fines, there should be a sweet spot amount that clearly indicates, a repeat means you FAAFO
  - shkkmo 3y ago
    I don't think that such a "sweet spot" necessarily exists for every company. Many of the companies depend on these illegal business practices to be profitable. If you levy fines that make those illegal practices unprofitable, there are companies that will no longer exist (and shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.) The bigger problem, is that many of these companies are structured in a way that profits get extracted to the owners while liabilities don't. So even if you fine these companies out of existence, you don't necessarily make the practice unprofitable. This is why we need these fines to also pierce liability limiting corporate structures and why we need laws to allow us to put the people profiting from these illegal acts in jail.
- devonbleak 3y ago
  The telcos making money from these calls disagree with your assessment of the economic harm of killing them. It'd be shut down in a heartbeat if they were costing them money.
lightbendover 3y ago
Dying to hear about someone's life who was actually improved by taking a cold sales call. Make it straight up illegal and egregiously non-profitable to even try and the world will be much better for it.
zie 3y ago
I get your point, and I agree the govt shouldn't be in the business of putting companies out of business if their crime just needs some discouragement. The problem is, if a company made 500M from their bad behaviour, and the govt only charged them 300M. The company is not incentivized to not do this behaviour anymore. They made 200M net after the fine! If they made 500M and the fine is 550M, then they are incentivized. It hurt them 50M to do the bad behaviour. It's obviously not as simple as I'm making it, because just calculating the money they made from the bad behaviour could be very complicated. but you get the idea.
Yoofie 3y ago
> but should not be so large as to be an instant kill for what could be a legal business Why not? A corporate death penalty should absolutely be a thing. If we can have it for people, then we can have it for a business. The problem is that government sucks at doing its own job and the usual punishments are a joke.

by rolph 3y ago

shkkmo 3y ago

The negative reinforcement needs to be strong enough to make the behavior unprofitable or it is completely ineffective. The fines exhibited here don't do that so your justification falls flat. I also really don't see the economic harm in killing robocall companies. It seems like a net win to me.

rolph 3y ago
not trying to justify low fines, there should be a sweet spot amount that clearly indicates, a repeat means you FAAFO
- shkkmo 3y ago
  I don't think that such a "sweet spot" necessarily exists for every company. Many of the companies depend on these illegal business practices to be profitable. If you levy fines that make those illegal practices unprofitable, there are companies that will no longer exist (and shouldn't have been allowed to exist in the first place.) The bigger problem, is that many of these companies are structured in a way that profits get extracted to the owners while liabilities don't. So even if you fine these companies out of existence, you don't necessarily make the practice unprofitable. This is why we need these fines to also pierce liability limiting corporate structures and why we need laws to allow us to put the people profiting from these illegal acts in jail.
devonbleak 3y ago
The telcos making money from these calls disagree with your assessment of the economic harm of killing them. It'd be shut down in a heartbeat if they were costing them money.

lightbendover 3y ago

Dying to hear about someone's life who was actually improved by taking a cold sales call. Make it straight up illegal and egregiously non-profitable to even try and the world will be much better for it.

zie 3y ago

I get your point, and I agree the govt shouldn't be in the business of putting companies out of business if their crime just needs some discouragement. The problem is, if a company made 500M from their bad behaviour, and the govt only charged them 300M. The company is not incentivized to not do this behaviour anymore. They made 200M net after the fine! If they made 500M and the fine is 550M, then they are incentivized. It hurt them 50M to do the bad behaviour. It's obviously not as simple as I'm making it, because just calculating the money they made from the bad behaviour could be very complicated. but you get the idea.

Yoofie 3y ago

> but should not be so large as to be an instant kill for what could be a legal business Why not? A corporate death penalty should absolutely be a thing. If we can have it for people, then we can have it for a business. The problem is that government sucks at doing its own job and the usual punishments are a joke.