3 ms·
Putting aside this is sort of a knee-jerk reaction, if this was actually implemented you’d just see the role of the CEO change to basically be a highly-paid fal
by twodave 7mo ago
Putting aside this is sort of a knee-jerk reaction, if this was actually implemented you’d just see the role of the CEO change to basically be a highly-paid fall-guy. People in those positions today would vacate them for quieter roles behind the scenes, and corporations would put greater effort forth to hide their decision making processes. I don’t think it would be a better system.
- xvector 7mo agoSure, and we can deal with that problem when it comes to it. For now, there are people at these companies that are clearly responsible and can be held accountable.
- tclancy 7mo ago>you’d just see the role of the CEO change to basically be a highly-paid fall-guy. That seems to be assuming a world where CEOs actually face meaningful consequences and that feels like a good start.
- twodave 7mo ago"Meaningful consequences" in this case means "throwing a CEO in jail until they de-anonymize their platform," which sounds ripe for abuse to me.
- tclancy 7mo agoIn this specific case, perhaps. In most it means "throwing a CEO in prison or fining them extensively for crimes they have committed".
- twodave 7mo agoIn what instance is a CEO not liable for their own crimes? At least in the US, they are still criminally liable for anything they do. If anything is at issue here, I think it's whether it can be proven a crime was committed and who can be proven guilty of it. I think often civil penalties end up being the answer because they're just easier to make stick (AIUI the burden of proof is lower in those cases).
- applfanboysbgon 7mo agoWhy would anyone sign up to be the fall guy? Perhaps because the payoff is worth the the punishment. So make the punishment algorithmically outweigh the payoff, for example by seizing everything they were paid to be the fall guy plus jail time. Doesn't seem like a hard problem to solve if politicians were actually interested in holding CEOs and corporations accountable, the problem is the politicians themselves are bought and paid for.
- Ekaros 7mo agoI believe we should do away with limited liability as a concept. Companies would get lot less investments and lot more scrutiny if every stock holder was criminally held liable as a class for any crimes they commit. Lot of people would simply choose not to invest in such ventures or only select those where they can have sufficient oversight.
- twodave 7mo agoAFAIK limited liability is more about financial liability, not criminal. People are still responsible for actual crimes they commit, we just may need to classify more things as crimes. I think discouraging investment is the opposite of what leads to a prosperous society. We'll just have a bunch of rich landlord sitting on piles of cash, afraid to give it to anyone because the risk of any jail time at all is probably too high for most. And that doesn't even account for non-institutional investors. Can you imagine putting people in jail because of the meme stock they bought on Robin Hood?
- twodave 7mo agoThis already happens with professional athletes, so we have a model to look at. Look, I don't disagree that all people should be held accountable for their actions, but sometimes the solutions people fire off half-cocked (throw a CEO in jail until they de-anonymize their platform, for example) are not going to be used in such a naive way.
- Analemma_ 7mo agoI’m fine running straight down the list of corporate officers and senior managers and jailing them too until the behavior stops.