3 ms·

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However > You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fo

by maeil 2y ago

Agreed that massive fines (or, in my view preferably, massive stock dilutions) are better. However > You're proposing sending half of America to jail if any Fortune 500 commits a crime. That's a get-out-of-jail-free card, not meaningful deterrence. This is a poor argument. If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law. It would also work as a strong counterbalance to megacorps. Both which would be incredibly positive developments. It's similar to rules in football. "Well if you start carding players for getting angry at the ref then half the team will get a yellow card every game!". Yes, the very first game this might happen. The second and third it sure won't.

scarface_74 2y ago
> If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law So everyone in the US is going to do due diligence on all 500 companies in the S&P 500? Also you act as if the majority of Americans care about the law or ethics? You do remember the election we just had don’t you? The support that the majority has for 1500 criminals who just got pardoned?
- pclmulqdq 2y ago
  No, just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence for this sort of thing. In reality though, if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence You're proposing bankrupting millions of Americans' retirements because Uber didn't follow local taxi rules? > if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective Yes. Again, we're re-inventing massive fines.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    I don't think that scratches the itch. The point is to hold people personally responsible for what their money is doing. Mutual funds should be risky business because they obfuscate important details from the person who's making the decision--that's not a recipe for markets that work well.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> If the law would be as such and be upheld It wouldn't be upheld. It couldn't be upheld. The first time somebody were stupid enough to try to uphold it, it would prompt a popular firestorm that would undo its effects. (I'm not even approaching the numerical impposibility of attempting to enforce something like that.)
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  The way I've been imagining it, the jailtime would be allocated among the top 5 or 10 shareholders according to their stake.

by maeil 2y ago

scarface_74 2y ago

> If the law would be as such and be upheld, everyone would start making damm sure the companies they invest in are trying their hardest to adhere to the law So everyone in the US is going to do due diligence on all 500 companies in the S&P 500? Also you act as if the majority of Americans care about the law or ethics? You do remember the election we just had don’t you? The support that the majority has for 1500 criminals who just got pardoned?

pclmulqdq 2y ago
No, just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence for this sort of thing. In reality though, if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > just Fidelity and Vanguard (and S&P themselves) have to do due diligence You're proposing bankrupting millions of Americans' retirements because Uber didn't follow local taxi rules? > if $100 billion fines were on the table for companies like uber, that diligence would be priced into the stock and it would be far more effective Yes. Again, we're re-inventing massive fines.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  I don't think that scratches the itch. The point is to hold people personally responsible for what their money is doing. Mutual funds should be risky business because they obfuscate important details from the person who's making the decision--that's not a recipe for markets that work well.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> If the law would be as such and be upheld It wouldn't be upheld. It couldn't be upheld. The first time somebody were stupid enough to try to uphold it, it would prompt a popular firestorm that would undo its effects. (I'm not even approaching the numerical impposibility of attempting to enforce something like that.)

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
The way I've been imagining it, the jailtime would be allocated among the top 5 or 10 shareholders according to their stake.