4 ms·

> 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 anyth

by 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?
    - nradov 2y ago
      Seizing shares without paying compensation at the market rate would be flatly unconstitutional. There's really no question about that, it's a settled legal issue.
      - tivert 2y ago
        > Seizing shares without paying compensation at the market rate would be flatly unconstitutional. There's really no question about that, it's a settled legal issue. I don't think so. The scenario isn't an eminent domain "give it up 'cause we want that property" it's "you did wrong [because it did wrong and you own it], and this is your punishment." It's basically a fine, and fines aren't unconstitutional. Furthermore, in this specific case, Boeing has plead guilty to a felony, which makes the existence of a legal wrong pretty crystal clear.
        nradov 2y ago
        You may not "think" so, but you would be completely wrong because you're ignorant about the basics of US law. Boeing as a corporation and their shareholders are separate legal entities.
rolandog 2y ago
Exactly: "everything punishable should be punished, everywhere across the decision chain, all at once". No sternly worded letter, no slap on the wrist... Consequences! I'd even "scare them incorrupt" by threatening to nationalize the company if no sufficient corrective actions are implemented to stop being a net negative to society.
- tivert 2y ago
  > I'd even "scare them incorrupt" by threatening to nationalize the company if no sufficient corrective actions are implemented to stop being a net negative to society. Now that's the way to discipline the shareholders, which is a different problem than disciplining the leaders. The "401k objection" is often used as cover by the defenders of those people, in a ploy to avoid accountability: "shares are held by all kinds of common people in their 401ks, and all you be doing is punishing those innocents!" My answer to that is to require public companies (with brokerages) to maintain a registry of the beneficial owners of their shares, then just nationalize the shares of the largest shareholders (as those are the people/organization with any real influence). As for predictable objections of "it's impossible to collect that info1!1" they're already 90% of the way there, because they already know where to mail proxy statements. I think you can get the rest of the way with extra reporting requirements and onerous penalties for non-compliance (e.g. forfeiting the shares after a suitable grace period or if there is evidence of evasion).
  - ryandrake 2y ago
    That's always the excuse that gets trotted out whenever anyone even suggests punishing a corporation for wrongdoing: "Bbbbbut what about Middle Class Joe and Jane whose pensions and 401(k)s might go down slightly? Won't someone think of the 401(k) owners?" That and "Bbbbbut the jobs! If you punish a company, they'll have to fire people!" Those two combined are enough to scare the general public into allowing companies do whatever the hell they want. Maybe if regulators grew a sack and started absolutely deleting companies for wrongdoing, people would think twice before they invest in them or the various institutional funds that invest in them. Wishful thinking.
  - 2y ago
kiba 2y ago
If they can't work another executive job, they can't go around harming other businesses and people. The first thing that should happen is that the bad actions stop happening, by whatever means necessary. Justice can come later if that's truly necessary. 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. There's no need to resort to extreme measure, unless things are truly beyond the pale. It matters far more that regulations are enforced and consequences are enacted. Consequence don't need to be dire, unless actions are so beyond the pale that it required criminal investigations and consequences. If things escalated to the point of criminal investigation, your system isn't working. The first step is early detection, enforcement, and auditing. The FAA should be beefed up so that they can rely on their own agents for enforcing the rules, together with the ability to ramp up fines, stop production, and other gradual escalation until there are compliance to regulation.
- bigiain 2y ago
  > Consequence don't need to be dire Sometimes, consequences _do_ need to be dire. I had a boss once who used to calm everybody down when things were going badly saying "It's OK. Nobody is going to die." And he was right. We just build websites. No matter which customer was yelling on the phone like the world was ending, it was at worst a website outage. But some jobs, you can't say "Nobody is going to die." Canonically these are rocket science and brain surgery. But building airliners is 100% a job where if you don't do it right people are going to die. And airliners are more serious, brain surgery kills one patient when you make a mistake, rocket science kills a few astronauts. Faulty airliners kill hundreds of passengers at once. In my opinion, consequences for trading off even small increases in risk of death for hundreds of people at once just to meet financial targets _should_ be dire.
  - kiba 2y ago
    Minor consequences are guardrail before major consequences come into play. If you don't have feedback mechanism for minor infractions, problem will pile up. Boeing didn't kill people overnight, it comes as gradual escalation and ignoring boneheaded mistakes over and over again. If someone is being investigated for crime, the problem with the company began a long time ago. Consequences doesn't matter because what was minor issues became big issues. Dire consequences doesn't do anything. You're looking at justice not prevention.
soulofmischief 2y ago
The problem is the elites also have ownership in the prison industry and control of the government.

by tivert 2y ago

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?
  - nradov 2y ago
    Seizing shares without paying compensation at the market rate would be flatly unconstitutional. There's really no question about that, it's a settled legal issue.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > Seizing shares without paying compensation at the market rate would be flatly unconstitutional. There's really no question about that, it's a settled legal issue. I don't think so. The scenario isn't an eminent domain "give it up 'cause we want that property" it's "you did wrong [because it did wrong and you own it], and this is your punishment." It's basically a fine, and fines aren't unconstitutional. Furthermore, in this specific case, Boeing has plead guilty to a felony, which makes the existence of a legal wrong pretty crystal clear.
      - nradov 2y ago
        You may not "think" so, but you would be completely wrong because you're ignorant about the basics of US law. Boeing as a corporation and their shareholders are separate legal entities.

rolandog 2y ago

Exactly: "everything punishable should be punished, everywhere across the decision chain, all at once". No sternly worded letter, no slap on the wrist... Consequences! I'd even "scare them incorrupt" by threatening to nationalize the company if no sufficient corrective actions are implemented to stop being a net negative to society.

tivert 2y ago
> I'd even "scare them incorrupt" by threatening to nationalize the company if no sufficient corrective actions are implemented to stop being a net negative to society. Now that's the way to discipline the shareholders, which is a different problem than disciplining the leaders. The "401k objection" is often used as cover by the defenders of those people, in a ploy to avoid accountability: "shares are held by all kinds of common people in their 401ks, and all you be doing is punishing those innocents!" My answer to that is to require public companies (with brokerages) to maintain a registry of the beneficial owners of their shares, then just nationalize the shares of the largest shareholders (as those are the people/organization with any real influence). As for predictable objections of "it's impossible to collect that info1!1" they're already 90% of the way there, because they already know where to mail proxy statements. I think you can get the rest of the way with extra reporting requirements and onerous penalties for non-compliance (e.g. forfeiting the shares after a suitable grace period or if there is evidence of evasion).
- ryandrake 2y ago
  That's always the excuse that gets trotted out whenever anyone even suggests punishing a corporation for wrongdoing: "Bbbbbut what about Middle Class Joe and Jane whose pensions and 401(k)s might go down slightly? Won't someone think of the 401(k) owners?" That and "Bbbbbut the jobs! If you punish a company, they'll have to fire people!" Those two combined are enough to scare the general public into allowing companies do whatever the hell they want. Maybe if regulators grew a sack and started absolutely deleting companies for wrongdoing, people would think twice before they invest in them or the various institutional funds that invest in them. Wishful thinking.
- 2y ago

kiba 2y ago

If they can't work another executive job, they can't go around harming other businesses and people. The first thing that should happen is that the bad actions stop happening, by whatever means necessary. Justice can come later if that's truly necessary. 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. There's no need to resort to extreme measure, unless things are truly beyond the pale. It matters far more that regulations are enforced and consequences are enacted. Consequence don't need to be dire, unless actions are so beyond the pale that it required criminal investigations and consequences. If things escalated to the point of criminal investigation, your system isn't working. The first step is early detection, enforcement, and auditing. The FAA should be beefed up so that they can rely on their own agents for enforcing the rules, together with the ability to ramp up fines, stop production, and other gradual escalation until there are compliance to regulation.

bigiain 2y ago
> Consequence don't need to be dire Sometimes, consequences _do_ need to be dire. I had a boss once who used to calm everybody down when things were going badly saying "It's OK. Nobody is going to die." And he was right. We just build websites. No matter which customer was yelling on the phone like the world was ending, it was at worst a website outage. But some jobs, you can't say "Nobody is going to die." Canonically these are rocket science and brain surgery. But building airliners is 100% a job where if you don't do it right people are going to die. And airliners are more serious, brain surgery kills one patient when you make a mistake, rocket science kills a few astronauts. Faulty airliners kill hundreds of passengers at once. In my opinion, consequences for trading off even small increases in risk of death for hundreds of people at once just to meet financial targets _should_ be dire.
- kiba 2y ago
  Minor consequences are guardrail before major consequences come into play. If you don't have feedback mechanism for minor infractions, problem will pile up. Boeing didn't kill people overnight, it comes as gradual escalation and ignoring boneheaded mistakes over and over again. If someone is being investigated for crime, the problem with the company began a long time ago. Consequences doesn't matter because what was minor issues became big issues. Dire consequences doesn't do anything. You're looking at justice not prevention.

soulofmischief 2y ago

The problem is the elites also have ownership in the prison industry and control of the government.