4 ms·

I appreciate you treating the question in the way it was intended: A thought experiment. Our system does not treat seriously the bad behavior of corporations.

I appreciate you treating the question in the way it was intended: A thought experiment. Our system does not treat seriously the bad behavior of corporations. It is a way for shareholders to get only the upside and not suffer the consequences. Long ago, I divested from a mutual fund when I realized that it made me an indirect owner of Philip Morris. As shareholders, we can make choices that harm people and yet we risk no consequences beyond losing our investment. If it is a serious argument that we should jail more CEOs, then all who profit from criminal corporate behavior should be punished.

anonym29 2y ago
I applaud your willingness to put people over profits, but there is still a part of your (conditional) statement that makes me quite uncomfortable: >then all who profit from criminal corporate behavior should be punished. American, European, and British citizens profit from exploitation of the global south, exploitation that often includes violence. Should all American, European, and British citizens be punished simply for being beneficiaries of activity they don't necessarily endorse or support? What about shareholders who didn't make a choice to purchase shares of the companies in question, like recipients of pensions where the pension fund purchased shares in pursuit of producing a return for the workers they have promised to support financially?
- mcculley 2y ago
  The first part of your question seems like a different question to me. We have fundamental problems within our own legal framework that allow us to capture only the upside, which is the issue I am bringing up. You are expanding this to other jurisdictions. I think this is a fair question, but a different subject. I am not convinced that we should jail shareholders. I am also not convinced that legal entities designed to limit liability should exist. As for the second part of your question about those who inadvertently and ignorantly own shares in criminal enterprises, I think it is a good question and I do not have an answer. Maybe pension funds should be responsible for their investments.
  - hx8 2y ago
    As much as I agree with investing alongside your values, I don't think holding shareholders criminally liable for the companies they own fits alongside my concept of justice. Reasons why I'm against shareholder criminal liability * Shareholders do not directly commit crimes. We should hold those that directly commit the crime liable. * Shareholders often hold assets that hold stocks. Should I be responsible if I own an index fund with stocks in a company that owns stocks in a company that commits a crime? * Shareholders do not have perfect information about the inside operations of a company. I cannot read internal emails to determine if I own a shares in a company that is planning on committing a crime. * Shareholders can physically be outside of the legal jurisdictions that the company is operating from. Is it fair if Venezuelan shareholders are effectively unpunished while US resident shareholders are held responsible?
    - mcculley 2y ago
      These are all good questions. If shareholders were legally responsible for the actions of the companies they own, they would expect and be entitled to more transparency. I remain unconvinced that the system we were born into just happens to be the right way to do things. I can currently extract profit by owning pieces of corporations that harm individuals and society. This seems less than ideal to me.

anonym29 2y ago

I applaud your willingness to put people over profits, but there is still a part of your (conditional) statement that makes me quite uncomfortable: >then all who profit from criminal corporate behavior should be punished. American, European, and British citizens profit from exploitation of the global south, exploitation that often includes violence. Should all American, European, and British citizens be punished simply for being beneficiaries of activity they don't necessarily endorse or support? What about shareholders who didn't make a choice to purchase shares of the companies in question, like recipients of pensions where the pension fund purchased shares in pursuit of producing a return for the workers they have promised to support financially?

mcculley 2y ago
The first part of your question seems like a different question to me. We have fundamental problems within our own legal framework that allow us to capture only the upside, which is the issue I am bringing up. You are expanding this to other jurisdictions. I think this is a fair question, but a different subject. I am not convinced that we should jail shareholders. I am also not convinced that legal entities designed to limit liability should exist. As for the second part of your question about those who inadvertently and ignorantly own shares in criminal enterprises, I think it is a good question and I do not have an answer. Maybe pension funds should be responsible for their investments.
- hx8 2y ago
  As much as I agree with investing alongside your values, I don't think holding shareholders criminally liable for the companies they own fits alongside my concept of justice. Reasons why I'm against shareholder criminal liability * Shareholders do not directly commit crimes. We should hold those that directly commit the crime liable. * Shareholders often hold assets that hold stocks. Should I be responsible if I own an index fund with stocks in a company that owns stocks in a company that commits a crime? * Shareholders do not have perfect information about the inside operations of a company. I cannot read internal emails to determine if I own a shares in a company that is planning on committing a crime. * Shareholders can physically be outside of the legal jurisdictions that the company is operating from. Is it fair if Venezuelan shareholders are effectively unpunished while US resident shareholders are held responsible?
  - mcculley 2y ago
    These are all good questions. If shareholders were legally responsible for the actions of the companies they own, they would expect and be entitled to more transparency. I remain unconvinced that the system we were born into just happens to be the right way to do things. I can currently extract profit by owning pieces of corporations that harm individuals and society. This seems less than ideal to me.