When it comes to something punitive like a fine, fine versus worth is literally the only thing that matters. If the fine isn’t big enough, it’s more like a fee for doing business. They just added to the bottom line and keep rolling.
I think worth and cash flow are too loosely correlated for that to work how youre intending. I’m all for punitive fines for corporate malfeasance, but if they’re based on worth only, a company could easily become insolvent even from fines that aren’t intended to be fatal to them.
If it is based off their cash flow instead and potentially distributed over a period of time, it can do multiple good things at once: force the company to literally pay for the harms it caused, damage their operations enough to financially discourage the behavior, and keep corporate behavior in line through examples without frequently disrupting markets by unduly bankrupting companies.
If a company does end up doing something so bad that it is unforgivable and irreparable, and it’s deemed worthy of destroying them or punishing those responsible directly, I can see the reasoning for that, too. But, I think it would work best if the punishments are dialed in to have the desired result as often as possible. Allowing the possibility of offenders correcting course seems better for everyone while still allowing any victims to get justice.
When it comes to something punitive like a fine, fine versus worth is literally the only thing that matters. If the fine isn’t big enough, it’s more like a fee for doing business. They just added to the bottom line and keep rolling.
It really is not. Companies operate on creating profit. Activities are judged on their ROI. Worth is not relevant for the ROI.
I think worth and cash flow are too loosely correlated for that to work how youre intending. I’m all for punitive fines for corporate malfeasance, but if they’re based on worth only, a company could easily become insolvent even from fines that aren’t intended to be fatal to them.
If it is based off their cash flow instead and potentially distributed over a period of time, it can do multiple good things at once: force the company to literally pay for the harms it caused, damage their operations enough to financially discourage the behavior, and keep corporate behavior in line through examples without frequently disrupting markets by unduly bankrupting companies.
If a company does end up doing something so bad that it is unforgivable and irreparable, and it’s deemed worthy of destroying them or punishing those responsible directly, I can see the reasoning for that, too. But, I think it would work best if the punishments are dialed in to have the desired result as often as possible. Allowing the possibility of offenders correcting course seems better for everyone while still allowing any victims to get justice.