2 ms·

> Just look at the recent Boeing incident where people were killed, the company clearly misled the US authorities and settled only a $0.5B fine. The problem is

> Just look at the recent Boeing incident where people were killed, the company clearly misled the US authorities and settled only a $0.5B fine. The problem is when you fine a company, they will just turn around and offload that cost to their customers. Which in this case is the US government in a very large way. Boeing will make their part in the SLS a few billion more expensive again to offset it and even gain some profit. The US government are just fining themselves. Fines just aren't an effective deterrent for companies. They should go back to imposing personal sentences on their leadership. But this is really unpopular because these guys are so well connected. So basically nothing is done and everyone goes free.

aoeusnth1 2y ago
You could force the company to pay the fine in the form of a % ownership stake in the company. Then if the company raises prices to hose the government, the extra profit flows back to the government in dividends.
- kristjank 2y ago
  That actually sounds pretty compelling...
WhyNotHugo 2y ago
The problem here is that "the company" is liable for the negligence of the person in charge. The person in charge is not liable for anything. And like you said, if the company has to pay, then the money obviously comes from its customers, not from the person in charge.
simiones 2y ago
That only works when the company has full power to set prices unilaterally, i.e. when it has monopoly power. Which is a separate problem that should be prevented separately. If Cisco gets fined a billion dollars, it can't just hike up the price of a router, as it will lose plenty of business to Juniper/Arista/F5/etc.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  They can in the short term because they have tons of companies way too invested in their ecosystem to change. See what VMWare did after the broadcom takeover. They did exactly that.
  - simiones 2y ago
    Then what's stopping them from charging more today, in the absence of any fine?
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Probably that they care about their customers, unlike Broadcom who just wants to milk the fat whales and isn't interested in the small fry. In other words: long-term vision over short-term gains.

aoeusnth1 2y ago

You could force the company to pay the fine in the form of a % ownership stake in the company. Then if the company raises prices to hose the government, the extra profit flows back to the government in dividends.

kristjank 2y ago
That actually sounds pretty compelling...

WhyNotHugo 2y ago

The problem here is that "the company" is liable for the negligence of the person in charge. The person in charge is not liable for anything. And like you said, if the company has to pay, then the money obviously comes from its customers, not from the person in charge.

simiones 2y ago

That only works when the company has full power to set prices unilaterally, i.e. when it has monopoly power. Which is a separate problem that should be prevented separately. If Cisco gets fined a billion dollars, it can't just hike up the price of a router, as it will lose plenty of business to Juniper/Arista/F5/etc.

wkat4242 2y ago
They can in the short term because they have tons of companies way too invested in their ecosystem to change. See what VMWare did after the broadcom takeover. They did exactly that.
- simiones 2y ago
  Then what's stopping them from charging more today, in the absence of any fine?
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Probably that they care about their customers, unlike Broadcom who just wants to milk the fat whales and isn't interested in the small fry. In other words: long-term vision over short-term gains.