3 ms·

board members and executives can and should. shareholder equity should be zero'd (or at least devalued if the shareholder had a significant impact on votes, wha

by baq 3y ago

board members and executives can and should. shareholder equity should be zero'd (or at least devalued if the shareholder had a significant impact on votes, whatever that means.) so should any vp, second line and even front line managers if they collaborated. whistleblowers should get government protection. not sure which government, though.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> board members and executives can and should. If they individually committed crimes and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sure. Of course, by DoJ’s own description of why they approved the deferred prosecution agreeement, that's absolutely not the case with the 737 Max charges.
- feoren 3y ago
  How can the company commit crimes without its decision-makers committing crimes? This double-standard we have is ridiculous. Every 1% increase in stock price is always attributed entirely to the wunderkind CEO and he therefore deserves tens of millions in bonuses every year, but a criminally negligent company kills people and suddenly the CEO has nothing to do with it? They are acting as the chief executive of the criminal corporation. Those fuckers should be thrown in jail. "Oh but then our favorite Harvard MBA Graduate with a transcript full of Gentleman's Cs who's the grandson of the previous billionaire CEO wouldn't want to be CEO!! Who would want the job!?" -- fucking GOOD. They get paid 300 times more than line workers, and we're worried about how the job might not be cushy enough to attract our favorite nepo-babies? Maybe the most lucrative jobs in the entire world should only be attractive to people who are actually competent at making sure the company is operating well and not literally murdering innocent people!?
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > How can the company commit crimes without its decision-makers committing crimes? Very easily. Companies as aggregates of people beyond just the decision makers can both do actions and have knowledge that the decisionmakers do not, and knowledge and action tend to be important in the definition of crimes.
    - chii 2y ago
      But not in statutory crimes. Such as statutory rape - you not knowing doesn't absolve you, as the legislation mandates that it is on you to check (within reasonable bounds).
  - consumer451 3y ago
    There is a saying "high risk, high reward." This makes sense. The problem with modern C-suite culture is that it's no risk, all reward. This does not make sense, and seems unsustainable in the long term.
- schmidt_fifty 3y ago
  [dead]
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> shareholder equity should be zero'd This is what criminal convictions with large fines do. The Board members and executives then get to spend years in shareholder lawsuits. If those suits turn up evidence of individual criminality, prosecution is on the table.

by baq 3y ago

dragonwriter 3y ago

> board members and executives can and should. If they individually committed crimes and that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, sure. Of course, by DoJ’s own description of why they approved the deferred prosecution agreeement, that's absolutely not the case with the 737 Max charges.

feoren 3y ago
How can the company commit crimes without its decision-makers committing crimes? This double-standard we have is ridiculous. Every 1% increase in stock price is always attributed entirely to the wunderkind CEO and he therefore deserves tens of millions in bonuses every year, but a criminally negligent company kills people and suddenly the CEO has nothing to do with it? They are acting as the chief executive of the criminal corporation. Those fuckers should be thrown in jail. "Oh but then our favorite Harvard MBA Graduate with a transcript full of Gentleman's Cs who's the grandson of the previous billionaire CEO wouldn't want to be CEO!! Who would want the job!?" -- fucking GOOD. They get paid 300 times more than line workers, and we're worried about how the job might not be cushy enough to attract our favorite nepo-babies? Maybe the most lucrative jobs in the entire world should only be attractive to people who are actually competent at making sure the company is operating well and not literally murdering innocent people!?
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > How can the company commit crimes without its decision-makers committing crimes? Very easily. Companies as aggregates of people beyond just the decision makers can both do actions and have knowledge that the decisionmakers do not, and knowledge and action tend to be important in the definition of crimes.
  - chii 2y ago
    But not in statutory crimes. Such as statutory rape - you not knowing doesn't absolve you, as the legislation mandates that it is on you to check (within reasonable bounds).
- consumer451 3y ago
  There is a saying "high risk, high reward." This makes sense. The problem with modern C-suite culture is that it's no risk, all reward. This does not make sense, and seems unsustainable in the long term.
schmidt_fifty 3y ago
[dead]

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> shareholder equity should be zero'd This is what criminal convictions with large fines do. The Board members and executives then get to spend years in shareholder lawsuits. If those suits turn up evidence of individual criminality, prosecution is on the table.