4 ms·

I’m a big proponent we should apply the value of a life — about $10M. Financial crimes should be scaled so the penalties for doing $10M in damage are equivalen

I’m a big proponent we should apply the value of a life — about $10M. Financial crimes should be scaled so the penalties for doing $10M in damage are equivalent to 1 dead person. Do a billion in damage? You’re going away forever, the same as someone who sets off a bomb killing a hundred people. I think we’d solve a lot of our problems if we accepted money as life-equivalent in both directions, ie, not only as a value when a wrongful death occurs.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think the crimes are categorically different, and you can't compare them in that manner. There is no singular "the value of life". There are numbers which some people use in very specific circumstances. Prices for life are subjective. I would say mine is priceless, and might say yours is much cheaper. When you take someones life, they don't have a chance to put a price to it.
- GavinMcG 2y ago
  Do any of those reasons weigh against measuring the seriousness of financial crimes in terms of actuarial lives? No problem with the objection that lives are priceless, but couldn’t the inverse still be a useful lens?
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I dont think it is useful at all. They are categorically different. There is single plunishment for lives lost in the legal system either. It depends on many things like intent. A life lost could range from life in prison to no punishment at all. Same for financial crime, and each depend on like 10 factors.
yard2010 2y ago
I would argue no money could buy life. If you lose your money you are still alive. If you lose your life, you lose the money too.
- heavenlyblue 2y ago
  Yes and stealing billions from hundreds if people who lose a home/ability to educate isn't the same as stealing someone's life.
- aidenn0 2y ago
  The government regularly has to calculate a baseline for saving lives; e.g. if you have to spend 3 trillion dollars to save one life, you could instead do many much cheaper things to save millions of lives. For the US, preventing highway deaths is valued at roughly $13 Million[1], which is probably what GP is thinking of; the government has confidence that for every $13MM it spends on highway safety, it can save 1 life, on average, so a new safety measure that costs less than this per life saved is a win, and a new safety measure that costs more than this per life saved is a loss. I'm sure in other contexts there are other numbers; there is no reason to think that safety interventions in e.g. mines or factories or hospitals should cost the same. Similarly if you've talked to a member of the Effective Altruism community for more than about 5 minutes you're likely to hear how you can save a life in Africa with mosquito nets for less than $10k. Clearly money can buy lives, but GP needs to justify why they are using the USDOT numbers rather than some other number. 1: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis\ https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...*
Ekaros 2y ago
I would say we take minimum number a person should go in jail for a day. Let's say 100 would be reasonable number to spend a day in jail. Now just divide sum by this number and you get days. Simple effective and entirely fair for everyone.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think the crimes are categorically different, and you can't compare them in that manner. There is no singular "the value of life". There are numbers which some people use in very specific circumstances. Prices for life are subjective. I would say mine is priceless, and might say yours is much cheaper. When you take someones life, they don't have a chance to put a price to it.

GavinMcG 2y ago
Do any of those reasons weigh against measuring the seriousness of financial crimes in terms of actuarial lives? No problem with the objection that lives are priceless, but couldn’t the inverse still be a useful lens?
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I dont think it is useful at all. They are categorically different. There is single plunishment for lives lost in the legal system either. It depends on many things like intent. A life lost could range from life in prison to no punishment at all. Same for financial crime, and each depend on like 10 factors.

yard2010 2y ago

I would argue no money could buy life. If you lose your money you are still alive. If you lose your life, you lose the money too.

heavenlyblue 2y ago
Yes and stealing billions from hundreds if people who lose a home/ability to educate isn't the same as stealing someone's life.
aidenn0 2y ago
The government regularly has to calculate a baseline for saving lives; e.g. if you have to spend 3 trillion dollars to save one life, you could instead do many much cheaper things to save millions of lives. For the US, preventing highway deaths is valued at roughly $13 Million[1], which is probably what GP is thinking of; the government has confidence that for every $13MM it spends on highway safety, it can save 1 life, on average, so a new safety measure that costs less than this per life saved is a win, and a new safety measure that costs more than this per life saved is a loss. I'm sure in other contexts there are other numbers; there is no reason to think that safety interventions in e.g. mines or factories or hospitals should cost the same. Similarly if you've talked to a member of the Effective Altruism community for more than about 5 minutes you're likely to hear how you can save a life in Africa with mosquito nets for less than $10k. Clearly money can buy lives, but GP needs to justify why they are using the USDOT numbers rather than some other number. 1: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-policy/revised-departmental-guidance-on-valuation-of-a-statistical-life-in-economic-analysis\ https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...*

Ekaros 2y ago

I would say we take minimum number a person should go in jail for a day. Let's say 100 would be reasonable number to spend a day in jail. Now just divide sum by this number and you get days. Simple effective and entirely fair for everyone.