4 ms·

I disagree. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss. That seems like a reasonable approach.

by refurb 2y ago

I disagree. It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss. That seems like a reasonable approach. By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative?

dartos 2y ago
> It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss. Sure, but I don’t think just causing any amount of loss acts as a deterrent. Especially if the company is large enough to absorb the loss with no real consequences. > By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative? No, that’s a dumb question. A negative fine isn’t a fine and isn’t a deterrent… I don’t know what metric one should use to determine how to make a fine a deterrent. Maybe market cap? But the point of a fine is to be a deterrent.
- refurb 2y ago
  > But the point of a fine is to be a deterrent. Is it? Or is it purely to make the action a net negative?
  - dartos 2y ago
    The purpose of a fine is to deter an action. Making an action a net negative _can_ act as a deterrent as in the $1B case earlier. The issue is that, at a certain scale, the risk of simply having an action be a net negative may be worth the potential upside. I honestly don’t understand what’s so disagreeable about this idea. What else would a fine be other than a serious deterrent to an illegal action? A mild annoyance? What else could the point be? I guess social retribution? But that’s just pointless.
    - refurb 2y ago
      > The issue is that, at a certain scale, the risk of simply having an action be a net negative may be worth the potential upside I agree there, but if you're going to come up with a system of fines to incentivize not breaking the law, it needs to make sense. Just making it a huge numbers is likely to not even pass muster in the courts. A $10B company paying a $1B fine for sending out spam mail to 10 customers would be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".

by refurb 2y ago

dartos 2y ago

> It doesn’t matter if it’s a $1T company, the fine effectively turned their profitable decision into a loss. Sure, but I don’t think just causing any amount of loss acts as a deterrent. Especially if the company is large enough to absorb the loss with no real consequences. > By your logic, if a company is running at a loss should the fine be negative? No, that’s a dumb question. A negative fine isn’t a fine and isn’t a deterrent… I don’t know what metric one should use to determine how to make a fine a deterrent. Maybe market cap? But the point of a fine is to be a deterrent.

refurb 2y ago
> But the point of a fine is to be a deterrent. Is it? Or is it purely to make the action a net negative?
- dartos 2y ago
  The purpose of a fine is to deter an action. Making an action a net negative _can_ act as a deterrent as in the $1B case earlier. The issue is that, at a certain scale, the risk of simply having an action be a net negative may be worth the potential upside. I honestly don’t understand what’s so disagreeable about this idea. What else would a fine be other than a serious deterrent to an illegal action? A mild annoyance? What else could the point be? I guess social retribution? But that’s just pointless.
  - refurb 2y ago
    > The issue is that, at a certain scale, the risk of simply having an action be a net negative may be worth the potential upside I agree there, but if you're going to come up with a system of fines to incentivize not breaking the law, it needs to make sense. Just making it a huge numbers is likely to not even pass muster in the courts. A $10B company paying a $1B fine for sending out spam mail to 10 customers would be seen as "cruel and unusual punishment".