> It should at least be debatable, not taboo, to consider
It's not taboo, it's stupid and unworkable. 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.
Massive. Fines. Everyone keeps trying to be creative about penalising corporations without levying massive fines. Just levy the fines. You don't need to lay anyone off, you're just wiping the shareholders (and management) of their wealth and transferring ownership to creditors.
The "corporate death penalty" was the greatest invention of the corporate lobbyist. It successfully derails conversations about massive fines, which are workable and scary, into ones about charter revocations and whatnot, which is not.
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.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.)
It's not taboo, it's stupid and unworkable. 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.
Massive. Fines. Everyone keeps trying to be creative about penalising corporations without levying massive fines. Just levy the fines. You don't need to lay anyone off, you're just wiping the shareholders (and management) of their wealth and transferring ownership to creditors.
The "corporate death penalty" was the greatest invention of the corporate lobbyist. It successfully derails conversations about massive fines, which are workable and scary, into ones about charter revocations and whatnot, which is not.