DoctorWho wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:48 amLimited liability is so fundamental to a modern economy that it's hard to picture the world without it. Add liability of officers for a bad decision (in hindsight) then the system discourages anybody developing and selling anything on top of the disincentive for anybody to fund it.
Agreed. Limited liability as concept is sound. But it is not a binary concept. I am discussing the degree to which it is applied today.
This idea that holding individuals accountable for the harm they cause would destroy the economy is false. And propagated by those who cause harm. So yes, if an officer of a company authorizes actions that cause harm that are reasonably forseeable, they should be held accountable. This is the same discussion we have in the LE thread. It does nothing to change the behavior of LE officers for City's to pay out settlements and fines. Corporate officers effectively have qualified immunity in how the system currently operates.
It is my belief that Individual accountability is essential for any system that prioritizes incentivizing individuals to correctly weigh risk. As long as the system continues to individually reward people for risky behavior but only punishing the corporation for this behavior we will continue to see this.
DoctorWho wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:48 amIf you are referring to a government bailout of a private company, everybody believes that it's (at least) something that can undermine the system. Probably why it's so rare.
I don't believe it is rare anymore. Granted, rare and common are subjective determinations. There are numerous ways the government acts to 'bail' out or, to phrase it differently, ensure businesses succeed. It isn't as simple or obvious as save corporation X with an infusion of cash. IMO, businesses operate with greater risk on the assumption that they will be 'saved' by the political system or can use the legal system to avoid any consequences. I believe it was Mikey that said the best ROI in the United States is a corporate donation to a Senator.
DoctorWho wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:48 amNot sure if you are pointing to abuse of the system (serial bankruptcies, or improper use of the corporate shield, or the like) or that the system itself encourages bad behavior.
All of the above falls under using the legal system to avoid consequences of risky behavior. And the numerous ways the legal and political system operate such that holding corporations liable and applying meaningful consequences is almost impossible.
DoctorWho wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:48 amIf you have a specific example (real or hypothetical) you can point to, it would avoid a lot of talking past each other.
I believe this commonly occurs as to be self-evident. To give the classic example:
Take the 2008-2009 financial crisis. There were thousands, if not more, people in the banking and financing industry who knowingly packaged together bad assets and sold them as good assets. They all personally profited (that was their incentive) because they did not believe they would suffer consequences. How many were held criminally liable? How many were held civilly liable? How much harm did they cause? What have We as a society done to discourage such behavior in the future?
How many times has Wells Fargo been
caught doing something fraudulent? How often do we see a large bank getting caught committing illegal and fraudulent behavior? Once a year? And they just pay a fine and keep doing it! The system is broken until individuals are held accountable.
I have zero belief I'm gonna be able to out lawyer a lawyer about the in and outs of liability. I'm looking at this wholistically.