Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 As Scott said it is only their profit being fined. I ask again why it shouldnt be all or a significant part of it? Neither of you has answered that.
I did. Because that's capricious and makes no sense. Punishment must correlate with the law, not be based on the size of the company. What if an employee at Google stole a candy bar, is that the same punishment as this? If not, why would a number like 90% be presented? It's not sensible. It would be punishing because they can be punished, not based on what they did.
The only way getting fined 90% or 100% of their profits would make any sense at all was if what they did was the sole source of their profits.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 You are missing what i am saying. By default when you invest in a company you are agreeing with their management. If you didnt, you can choose to invest in a different company.
But management changes, decisions change as business goes on. Just because you agreed at one time, doesn't mean you know all of the inter workings of the business.
But it is YOUR responsibility as an owner to do so and you have legal recourse for this. The investors are the ones that profit from it, and take risks for that profit. Period. It is fully voluntary. You choose this risk when you invest. There is no other responsible party.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 You are missing what i am saying. By default when you invest in a company you are agreeing with their management. If you didnt, you can choose to invest in a different company.
But management changes, decisions change as business goes on. Just because you agreed at one time, doesn't mean you know all of the inter workings of the business.
But it is YOUR responsibility as an owner to do so and you have legal recourse for this. The investors are the ones that profit from it, and take risks for that profit. Period. It is fully voluntary. You choose this risk when you invest. There is no other responsible party.
I agree, which is why I keep repeating that fines are normal and to be expected.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 No becasue lying isnt illegal. If i did something whose punishment deserved a fine, then yes i should be fined. I have been fined 90% of my profits before(posession).
But your fined was based on what you did, right? They didn't ignore what you did, then look at your profits and say "doesn't matter what he did, let's just take all that we can?"
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 No becasue lying isnt illegal. If i did something whose punishment deserved a fine, then yes i should be fined. I have been fined 90% of my profits before(posession).
Sure it is, it's illegal to lie on a contractual obligation. It's illegal to lie in court.
And technically, the claim is that Google lied about the best things to buy. So lying is, pretty much, what the fine is for.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 Thats why you sell your shares when management changes their behavior to something you dont like. Have you ever invested money before? Do you keep a position forever?
Right, ownership changes way faster than management does.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 Thats why you sell your shares when management changes their behavior to something you dont like. Have you ever invested money before? Do you keep a position forever?
Or a different investment strategy is to hold on to your shares, threw thick and thin of the company.
Sure, but that is 100% a choice and if you do that, you absolutely need to be the one help accountable for being the long term owner responsible for what happened.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 Thats why you sell your shares when management changes their behavior to something you dont like. Have you ever invested money before? Do you keep a position forever?
Or a different investment strategy is to hold on to your shares, threw thick and thin of the company.
Sure, but that is 100% a choice and if you do that, you absolutely need to be the one help accountable for being the long term owner responsible for what happened.
Of course, and that is where you accept the results of the fine and pay your portion of the responsibility.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 That is a terrible idea and how people go bankrupt. Ill just hold on to my Eastman Kodak shares...
WHY SHOULDNT THE FINE BE 100% OF GOOGLE'S PROFIT FOR A YEAR?Why should there be? Answer it in reverse. I've made it really clear, I though, why it should never be like that. If you think that it should be, explain the logic for why it should be 100%. And why not 1% or 1000%. How is your 100% number not absolutely arbitrary?
-
With that logic, every speeding ticket should carry a fine of 100% of your income. Every ticket. Whether you go over by 1mph, or drive 200mph through a school zone. One fine for all offences, and based on your total disposable income for one year.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
With that logic, every speeding ticket should carry a fine of 100% of your income. Every ticket. Whether you go over by 1mph, or drive 200mph through a school zone. One fine for all offences, and based on your total disposable income for one year.
So if you steal a car, while being homeless and jobless your fine would be 0%?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Another example earlier this year, Wells Fargo committed fraud for 10 years on millions of their own customers. The fine, 100 million dollars after they stole billions. Not a single member of the management was arrested. What is the incentive for them to stop doing this?
$100m of incentive. Lack of customer loyalty (which will cost them far more.) Fear of a bigger fine next time. Investors that won't allow that risk.
There is incentive. After ten years, do you punish existing staff when the owners and managers that committed the fraud are long gone? At some point, the fine has no purpose.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There already exists mechanisms to do this. You, however, and many others think and act as if corporations are above the law. So nothing is done to stop their illegal activities. As proof: Wells Fargo, Google.
If that is the case, then the government has determined, as the representative of the citizens, that the companies ARE above the law. The voters get to choose if they like how the country is run. If they don't change the status quo, it means that they want the status quo.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There already exists mechanisms to do this. You, however, and many others think and act as if corporations are above the law. So nothing is done to stop their illegal activities. As proof: Wells Fargo, Google.
If that is the case, then the government has determined, as the representative of the citizens, that the companies ARE above the law. The voters get to choose if they like how the country is run. If they don't change the status quo, it means that they want the status quo.
Or another way to think about it is that the population of the country didn't think of "this act" until it was done, and has decided it is illegal now.
-
@scottalanmiller That is a bit off topic, because speeding shouldnt even be a crime. There is no victim. It is inherently not bad. If you get in an accident or hurt someone while speeding, that is bad.
-
@scottalanmiller something can be illegal and just not be enforced. This i think is what is happening. The government has the power to do much more to stop behavior like this but doesnt.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller That is a bit off topic, because speeding shouldnt even be a crime. There is no victim. It is inherently not bad. If you get in an accident or hurt someone while speeding, that is bad.
That's your opinion. Maybe putting their own items higher in rankings should not be a crime. Both are inherently not bad, both need to be punished to stop it happening in the future, both need to be balanced to be fair to all people doing the same thing rather than being a personal punishment only for one person or company, and both need to be based on the severity of the crime - not going to the max regardless of how big the crime was.
It's actually essentially identical in every way.
-
@scottalanmiller Fraud is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Using a monopoly position to stifle others is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Me driving fast does not cause harm by itself. If i lose control while speeding, hit a vile bicyclist, then i am causing harm.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller Fraud is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Using a monopoly position to stifle others is inherently bad. Causes harm to others by itself. Me driving fast does not cause harm by itself. If i lose control while speeding, hit a vile bicyclist, then i am causing harm.
But you are causing harm from the additional hazard you create while drying recklessly.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 That is a terrible idea and how people go bankrupt. Ill just hold on to my Eastman Kodak shares...
WHY SHOULDNT THE FINE BE 100% OF GOOGLE'S PROFIT FOR A YEAR?Why should there be? Answer it in reverse. I've made it really clear, I though, why it should never be like that. If you think that it should be, explain the logic for why it should be 100%. And why not 1% or 1000%. How is your 100% number not absolutely arbitrary?
Perhaps 100% is arbitrary. 1% is a joke that accomplishes nothing. 100% would send meaningful financial punishment to every person that owns a share of the company and agreed with the illegal behavior, which should be the desired outcome if prison is unacceptable for corporations.
