3 ms·
> It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant. It's a gain of billions of dollars that everyone agrees they should not have had in the first pla
by BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> It's a loss of ~1/2 of their net worth. That's significant.
It's a gain of billions of dollars that everyone agrees they should not have had in the first place. That's really much more significant.
It's pretty telling that literally nobody says that the Sackler family should actually have this money, just varying degrees of it being hard to claw back from them.
If someone walks into my house, stabs me with a knife, and steals the money on my dresser, keeping half of the money they took from me is the exact opposite of a loss for them.
- micromacrofoot 2y agoThere's no strong legal structure to allow it, the US justice system strongly favors the rich and corporations. Loose consensus isn't enough if there's no legal mechanism to do so. The deal was pragmatic in the absence of a clear path for actual consequences. It would be easier to rally an angry mob at this point.
- BugsJustFindMe 2y agoIt sounds like you agree with me, since this is exactly a variation of it being hard to claw back, which is annoyingly analogous to letting rich people get away with whatever they want including theft and murder because trying is hard.
- micromacrofoot 2y ago"Trying is hard" is kind of an edge-lord take on an incredibly complicated problem. People have been trying to fix this longer than we've been alive.