5 ms·

I don't think making an example out of those executives are going to do anything in particular. Stripping them out of their position and banning them from hold

by kiba 2y ago

I don't think making an example out of those executives are going to do anything in particular. Stripping them out of their position and banning them from holding executive positions will. Forcing Boeing to reorganize their structural incentive will. Forcing shareholders to take a haircut means that they will likely hold the board more accountable will. Like, nobody really think about risking people's lives for slightly more profit. It's more like they think about "cutting cost to get promotion and make more money. What risk? There's no risk.". It's not like Boeing are particularly competent. Their projects experienced cost overrun for example. This whole idea of outsourcing to individual contractors turned out to make development of aircraft even more expensive. Their space division is currently blowing another hole in their budget. Their Starliner program is a joke and has no future beyond the ISS. Some people may need to go to jail because it's more than just gross incompetence, fair enough. I am just skeptical of long lengthy sentences.

greenavocado 2y ago
> Stripping them out of their position and banning them from holding executive positions will Do you know what this means? It means getting the UHC treatment.
- brokencode 2y ago
  Murder is murder, and nobody deserves that kind of treatment. It makes our society worse, not better.
tivert 2y ago
> Stripping them out of their position and banning them from holding executive positions will. You mean a golden parachute? I don't think that will deter anything. I think the GP is on the right track. Business leaders need fear consequences, so they moderate their behavior, and that means messages must be sent. It would be perfect to have some fortune 100 CEO go to Davos one year, then return the next in a prison jumpsuit to tell all the collected elites about what it feels like to be utterly ruined. Then do it again and again until the message gets through.
- mcculley 2y ago
  What about putting shareholders in jail?
  - anonym29 2y ago
    A great solution to disincentivize all investment into capital markets - bankrupting thousands of companies, resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of layoffs and widespread economic devastation not seen in the U.S. since the great depression. Should we also start imprisoning everyone who voted for Obama because Obama's DoD conducted drone strikes against weddings, churches, and other civilian facilities and gatherings resulting in more civilian deaths than Bush's? Shareholders are no more responsible for the misdeeds of management than voters are for the misdeeds of politicians, after all. Your proposal goes against the core tenants of justice, liability, and property rights that have guided the civilization responsible for every part of your life that you cherish - from the device and connection you're posting with to the appliances that you cannot live without, to the economic systems that have lifted more human beings out of poverty than any other economic system ever conceived. What's the argument in favor of your proposal that outweighs these cons? P.S. - I upvoted your comment because as much as I vehemently disagree with your proposal, I believe we should all have the decency to discuss ideas we disagree with rather than attempt to censor them.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > Shareholders are no more responsible for the misdeeds of management than voters are for the misdeeds of politicians, after all. That's BS. Big shareholders can get seats on the board of directors and have influence over management decision-making. Jail time for shareholders is probably going too far in most circumstances, but forfeiture of shares is pretty reasonable.
      - anonym29 2y ago
        >but forfeiture of shares is pretty reasonable. From who, and to who? From only those big shareholders with seats on the board, from the "little guy", or from both? What happens to the forfeited shares in your proposal? Are we redistributing them? Are they getting nationalized? Mandatory buybacks? Destruction of those shares, increasing the voting power of the other shares?
evoke4908 2y ago
It's really very extremely simple. You're in charge of a safety-critical business. You make decisions that trade safety for profit. People die. You are charged with murder and go to jail for a very long time, just like any regular citizen. This really should not be controversial or complicated. If you kill people, there are consequences. That's how the world works for 99.9999% of the human race. The same standard should be applied to CEOs as the proxy for the corporate entity that they are. To argue anything else is to argue that so long as you have enough money, it's perfectly acceptable to kill as many people as you want in as gruesome a fashion as you'd like. The price of being a scumsucking robber baron murdering thousands of people for profit should be extreme. The profits gained from such behavior should be clawed back with the full force of government from any source even remotely related. The company should be gutted and auctioned off, or nationalized if they're "too big to fail". Investors immediately and irrevocably lose all stakes, no exceptions. All recovered moneys should be distributed to victims and families. Boeing never should have happened and it should never happen again. But this behavior and exploitation and mass murder will not stop so long as it's profitable and murderers just walk away with zero repercussions and keep their billions in blood money. Boeing is not a case of incompetence. This is a case of pure and simple greed. They've ignored safety reports and FAA guidance. They even rigged the FAA inspection process to let them rubber-stamp things in-house (while ignoring failing reports). This has been a long decline and they've made the worst decisions the entire time. Even if it were incompetence or ignorance, it absolutely does not matter. If you run over a kid because you were texting or simply not paying attention to the road, you go to jail. If your incompetence leads to hundreds and thousands of deaths, you should be just as culpable. Stop making excuses for billionaire mass murders. Drag them to the gallows instead.
- bdangubic 2y ago
  > You're in charge of a safety-critical business... This sounds super amazing but where do you stop? I am software developer working on the latest cool algorithm to control traffic lights to help with congestion. I fuck up, green turns on opposite sides of the road, car accident, 10 people instantly dead. I go to jail as lead dev on software that runs?! CEO goes to jail because project may have required 10 QA people but he only hired 3 to save a few bucks...? These things is why you have government and you have regulation. We put people in offices whose job is large part is to protect the citizens. Expecting a CEO to act in the best interest of citizens is like trusting a fat kid around apple pie :)
sgt101 2y ago
I think you are onto something. There's often a threat to make companies pay 4% of their global turn over or something, but it would be more effective to make them issue voting shares with a value of 4% of their equity to the goverment - who could then sell them. If stockholders were threatened with a 4% dilution then they'd be much more vigilant than if the company has to pay a fine - which in the end shareholders will pass on to customers. Also I think that governments are wary of destabalising companies with big fines - especially banks. A shareholder dilution will not threaten the finances of structurally important entities.

by kiba 2y ago

greenavocado 2y ago

> Stripping them out of their position and banning them from holding executive positions will Do you know what this means? It means getting the UHC treatment.

brokencode 2y ago
Murder is murder, and nobody deserves that kind of treatment. It makes our society worse, not better.

tivert 2y ago

> Stripping them out of their position and banning them from holding executive positions will. You mean a golden parachute? I don't think that will deter anything. I think the GP is on the right track. Business leaders need fear consequences, so they moderate their behavior, and that means messages must be sent. It would be perfect to have some fortune 100 CEO go to Davos one year, then return the next in a prison jumpsuit to tell all the collected elites about what it feels like to be utterly ruined. Then do it again and again until the message gets through.

mcculley 2y ago
What about putting shareholders in jail?
- anonym29 2y ago
  A great solution to disincentivize all investment into capital markets - bankrupting thousands of companies, resulting in hundreds of thousands if not millions of layoffs and widespread economic devastation not seen in the U.S. since the great depression. Should we also start imprisoning everyone who voted for Obama because Obama's DoD conducted drone strikes against weddings, churches, and other civilian facilities and gatherings resulting in more civilian deaths than Bush's? Shareholders are no more responsible for the misdeeds of management than voters are for the misdeeds of politicians, after all. Your proposal goes against the core tenants of justice, liability, and property rights that have guided the civilization responsible for every part of your life that you cherish - from the device and connection you're posting with to the appliances that you cannot live without, to the economic systems that have lifted more human beings out of poverty than any other economic system ever conceived. What's the argument in favor of your proposal that outweighs these cons? P.S. - I upvoted your comment because as much as I vehemently disagree with your proposal, I believe we should all have the decency to discuss ideas we disagree with rather than attempt to censor them.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > Shareholders are no more responsible for the misdeeds of management than voters are for the misdeeds of politicians, after all. That's BS. Big shareholders can get seats on the board of directors and have influence over management decision-making. Jail time for shareholders is probably going too far in most circumstances, but forfeiture of shares is pretty reasonable.
    - anonym29 2y ago
      >but forfeiture of shares is pretty reasonable. From who, and to who? From only those big shareholders with seats on the board, from the "little guy", or from both? What happens to the forfeited shares in your proposal? Are we redistributing them? Are they getting nationalized? Mandatory buybacks? Destruction of those shares, increasing the voting power of the other shares?

evoke4908 2y ago

It's really very extremely simple. You're in charge of a safety-critical business. You make decisions that trade safety for profit. People die. You are charged with murder and go to jail for a very long time, just like any regular citizen. This really should not be controversial or complicated. If you kill people, there are consequences. That's how the world works for 99.9999% of the human race. The same standard should be applied to CEOs as the proxy for the corporate entity that they are. To argue anything else is to argue that so long as you have enough money, it's perfectly acceptable to kill as many people as you want in as gruesome a fashion as you'd like. The price of being a scumsucking robber baron murdering thousands of people for profit should be extreme. The profits gained from such behavior should be clawed back with the full force of government from any source even remotely related. The company should be gutted and auctioned off, or nationalized if they're "too big to fail". Investors immediately and irrevocably lose all stakes, no exceptions. All recovered moneys should be distributed to victims and families. Boeing never should have happened and it should never happen again. But this behavior and exploitation and mass murder will not stop so long as it's profitable and murderers just walk away with zero repercussions and keep their billions in blood money. Boeing is not a case of incompetence. This is a case of pure and simple greed. They've ignored safety reports and FAA guidance. They even rigged the FAA inspection process to let them rubber-stamp things in-house (while ignoring failing reports). This has been a long decline and they've made the worst decisions the entire time. Even if it were incompetence or ignorance, it absolutely does not matter. If you run over a kid because you were texting or simply not paying attention to the road, you go to jail. If your incompetence leads to hundreds and thousands of deaths, you should be just as culpable. Stop making excuses for billionaire mass murders. Drag them to the gallows instead.

bdangubic 2y ago
> You're in charge of a safety-critical business... This sounds super amazing but where do you stop? I am software developer working on the latest cool algorithm to control traffic lights to help with congestion. I fuck up, green turns on opposite sides of the road, car accident, 10 people instantly dead. I go to jail as lead dev on software that runs?! CEO goes to jail because project may have required 10 QA people but he only hired 3 to save a few bucks...? These things is why you have government and you have regulation. We put people in offices whose job is large part is to protect the citizens. Expecting a CEO to act in the best interest of citizens is like trusting a fat kid around apple pie :)

sgt101 2y ago

I think you are onto something. There's often a threat to make companies pay 4% of their global turn over or something, but it would be more effective to make them issue voting shares with a value of 4% of their equity to the goverment - who could then sell them. If stockholders were threatened with a 4% dilution then they'd be much more vigilant than if the company has to pay a fine - which in the end shareholders will pass on to customers. Also I think that governments are wary of destabalising companies with big fines - especially banks. A shareholder dilution will not threaten the finances of structurally important entities.