Non-IT News Thread
-
@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.
-
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
Yes there is.
-
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
You're making the area that much more dangerous to pedestrians and other commuters. That in it's self is risk and a hazard.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also what I believe many people here are overlooking is that there can be a few investors who own the majority share of a company like Google, and decide to do things illegally because they have the most say.
An investor with less than .01% stock in a company, has a say, and its shut up and let us run the way we want, or sell your stock.
I've definitely not forgotten that and assume it in every post and feel that it is 100% in line with all of my logic. Their punishment is tied to the size of their involvement.
-
@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.
That's not actually true. What if the fraud also helps the final customers? There isn't necessarily an innocent, injured party. And is it fraud to promote yourself? And often monopolies are chosen for efficiency. It's more like speeding than you think. But it didn't risk human life.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
No there isnt. What harm? What hazard?
So you think speeding laws are an attack on citizens and don't exist to make the roads safer? What if we feel that way about anti-trust?
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
@DustinB3403 There is no harm if i get to my destination without crashing or hitting anybody.
This is based on the assumption that risk is not harm.
Also, we can say there was no harm since people still bought stuff from Google.
So... no need for a fine.
-
@momurda said in Non-IT News Thread:
Perhaps 100% is arbitrary. 1% is a joke that accomplishes nothing.
How are you determining that? 1% is pretty significant in business, very, very significant. And this was 12% of profits. That's FREAKING ENORMOUS.
-
Keep in mind, this is a local violation. What if this happened in Kenya or only in Montenegro. Would you want the same 100% fine for such a tiny infraction? Why would the EU fine 100% of revenues for something so local and trivial? What doing so be license to do anything else? Wouldn't that just teach companies to be MORE risky and do this MORE often, because if any little thing might hit you for the max, you need to go high or go home. Make the fine too big, and getting fined stops being a threat.
-
Also, this is a record fine. This is the exact opposite of significant. It actually sounds unbelievably over the top as it is. Think about all of Google's revenue, did they deserve to lose so much for something so small that likely affected no one?
