[4oh9do]

It's all Monopoly money to corporations. If there is no fear of an actual corporal punishment, then there is no personal skin in the game, so to speak. An executive who causes a corporation to be fined may worry about losing their job, but they'll be much more worried if the risk is going to prison.

And it's not that we love to imprison people in the US, it's that we love to imprison the wrong people.

[dontbenebby]

>It's all Monopoly money to corporations. If there is no fear of an actual corporal punishment

The Swift Ban was as close to an economic death penalty as you can give a bank, we should do it more often to corporations, public or private, that act the fool

(Looking at you, China, with your manipulation of both CNH and CNY)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIFT_ban_against_Russian_bank...

[QuarterReptile]

>It's all Monopoly money to corporations.

Surely you don't mean by this that they don't care about money. Isn't the cynical take normally that corporations are amoral money maximizing juggernauts? Why wouldn't they respond to adequate threats?

[themitigating]

It's not that they don't care about money it's that they are less affected by loss.

Once someone earns about 10 million they can live for the rest of their life in a reasonable way without working again. So when you are an executive who has assets of 50 to 70 million and your stock, which was worth 10 mil is now worth 7 mil you aren't hurt that bad.

The company can they raise prices, cut quality, and fire people to reduce costs to make up for the fine. The stock might eventually even go higher than it was before.

[4oh9do]

What I mean is that executives value their personal livelihoods above money, though the two are often correlated. Therefore the punishment needs to strike at the core, their personal as opposed to financial freedom. "Big" fines for corporations have been around forever, I don't see them changing anything.