3 ms·

would be hilarious to sentence a company to, say, 4000 years in prison and divvy out punishment proportional to the ownership stake. like, this guy owning a fe

would be hilarious to sentence a company to, say, 4000 years in prison and divvy out punishment proportional to the ownership stake. like, this guy owning a few hundred shares on TD ameritrade must report to jail for 38 hours next week. bring a book.

smegger001 1y ago
We would probably see much more law abiding companies as the next shareholder meeting would involve an entirely new board of directors (the previous still serving time) and all of the shareholders themselves having spent time in prison be it hours or days or weeks would not permit such behavior in future.
- opello 1y ago
  An entirely new section to the shareholder meeting agenda: criminal exposure. I wonder if we would also have mandatory market rate buy-back of securities for when a shareholder can't find a buyer but also no longer wants to bear the risk of the corporation's behavior? Similarly, mutual funds might refuse to hold securities that expose them to criminal punishment.
- SR2Z 1y ago
  Companies like Uber that work in regulated industries would find it nearly impossible to operate. Healthcare companies - like the ones that manufacturer pacemakers or implants - would find it basically impossible to raise money. Ditto for aerospace, construction, and tool companies. Why would investors want to get involved when they're one lawsuit away from going personally broke? Limited liability is a good idea and shareholders really shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of the C-suite.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    Ok, but what's the downside?
    - SR2Z 1y ago
      You don't see a downside to freezing out investment in medical devices or other risky but useful technologies? I know snarking is fun, but it's really annoying when it's clear you didn't read my comment before replying.
      - kelseyfrog 1y ago
        I read it. I just don't believe that companies, morally, should exist. Like, categorically. Sure, they have their upsides, there are positive consequences, but that's arguing that the ends justify the means.
        SR2Z 1y ago
        Then I suppose you either believe that advanced technology falls out of the sky or should be created by government agencies. Both of those are harder to make accountable than companies. The ends do sometimes justify the means. That's why we can require people to get vaccinated or be licensed to drive. It's insane to think otherwise; OBVIOUSLY we act this way and it's not controversial.
  - throwawaymaths 1y ago
    Going broke is not possible since lawsuit damages would be capped at the stock price value. And I'm not suggesting eliminating limited liability. Just, giving judges the authority to strip it (this is already a thing as the corporate veil can be peirced) with real shareholder consequences, instead of pussyfooting around. And if you think that means shareholders will be on eggshells. Yeah great. Maybe we'll have fewer psychopaths as CEOs, or at the very least if you are a CEO that fucks up badly you will never fail up.
- Nasrudith 1y ago
  Nah, you would just find suddently nobody is willing to deal in equity and suddenly corporate bonds would absolutely explode.

smegger001 1y ago

We would probably see much more law abiding companies as the next shareholder meeting would involve an entirely new board of directors (the previous still serving time) and all of the shareholders themselves having spent time in prison be it hours or days or weeks would not permit such behavior in future.

opello 1y ago
An entirely new section to the shareholder meeting agenda: criminal exposure. I wonder if we would also have mandatory market rate buy-back of securities for when a shareholder can't find a buyer but also no longer wants to bear the risk of the corporation's behavior? Similarly, mutual funds might refuse to hold securities that expose them to criminal punishment.
SR2Z 1y ago
Companies like Uber that work in regulated industries would find it nearly impossible to operate. Healthcare companies - like the ones that manufacturer pacemakers or implants - would find it basically impossible to raise money. Ditto for aerospace, construction, and tool companies. Why would investors want to get involved when they're one lawsuit away from going personally broke? Limited liability is a good idea and shareholders really shouldn't be held responsible for the actions of the C-suite.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago
  Ok, but what's the downside?
  - SR2Z 1y ago
    You don't see a downside to freezing out investment in medical devices or other risky but useful technologies? I know snarking is fun, but it's really annoying when it's clear you didn't read my comment before replying.
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      I read it. I just don't believe that companies, morally, should exist. Like, categorically. Sure, they have their upsides, there are positive consequences, but that's arguing that the ends justify the means.
      - SR2Z 1y ago
        Then I suppose you either believe that advanced technology falls out of the sky or should be created by government agencies. Both of those are harder to make accountable than companies. The ends do sometimes justify the means. That's why we can require people to get vaccinated or be licensed to drive. It's insane to think otherwise; OBVIOUSLY we act this way and it's not controversial.
- throwawaymaths 1y ago
  Going broke is not possible since lawsuit damages would be capped at the stock price value. And I'm not suggesting eliminating limited liability. Just, giving judges the authority to strip it (this is already a thing as the corporate veil can be peirced) with real shareholder consequences, instead of pussyfooting around. And if you think that means shareholders will be on eggshells. Yeah great. Maybe we'll have fewer psychopaths as CEOs, or at the very least if you are a CEO that fucks up badly you will never fail up.
Nasrudith 1y ago
Nah, you would just find suddently nobody is willing to deal in equity and suddenly corporate bonds would absolutely explode.