[anigbrowl]

Directly, nobody was injured. Proximately, we really have no idea. I am in favor of strict liability for a broader variety of negligent behavior. Losing one's career over bad judgment is of course a kind of deterrent, but realistically lots of people fuck up and then go on to have moderately profitable second careers by writing a book and giving talks with titles like 'Learning Hard Lessons'. If they're entrepreneurial they can become stars of the MBA circuit.

[jalapenos]

Strict liability for negligence would just mean sending business overseas where that rule isn't in play, and chilling it domestically.

No one is interested in the deal "if you get it right, you make some money; if you get it wrong, we obliterate you".

The move from caveat emptor to caveat venditor has coincided with everyone legally ringfencing things with corps & LLCs. People find ways back to a fair deal.

[anigbrowl]

If we have strict liability for truck drivers nobody will sign up to drive hazardous cargo.

[geysersam]

Yes people make mistakes. That's legal and it should be.

Especially in a business such as finance where the job literally is to estimate risk, someone will make the (in hindsight) wrong decision.