[roenxi]

But the difference there is that the mechanic is selling things that aren't his. The CEO & friends are making decisions that are their within their remit to make, they just made poor decisions.

People have been making similar arguments since the development of the limited liability company. It turns out that limiting liability is a far better system than the alternative for getting good things done.

We've already got a problem where all the manufacturing is heading to Asia. Criminal penalties hanging over the heads of CEOs of manufacturing companies will not help the situation.

[smallmancontrov]

> It turns out that limiting liability is a far better system

It's hilarious how gung-ho free market cheerleaders are about systematic responsibility and accountability and skin-in-the-game decision making... right up until the millisecond that involves something other than rich people getting paid for being rich, and then it's bailouts this and limited liability that.

[roenxi]

I'm against bailouts.

And criminal prosecutions of decision makers isn't as much skin in the game as it is making it risky to be responsible. It is just asking for lower-quality people to move in to high ranking posts and for confusing corporate structures to emerge.

It is better to impose large financial penalties on the company then let the markets sort out the details. I don't even mind the CEO suffering large penalties, but he and Boeing need to negotiate that before the event and put it in his contract, not after the fact.

[FredPret]

Limited liability means the owners can't lose more than they invest if the venture fails.

It works well because it encourages investors to take risks and fund new ventures.

It doesn't give them immunity to commit criminal acts, and therefore it doesn't protect the officers they appoint either (like the CEO).

If the CEO knowingly makes criminal decisions, he can absolutely be prosecuted.

[EasyMark]

CEOs of these safety critical companies are selling lives in return for profits, and I'm not being hyperbolic.

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

The limited liability is for financial risks.

Endangering the health of the public like for example dumping toxic waste or destroying a safety culture are criminal.

If Boeing decided to build a 797 story that was even bigger than the Airbus 380 and lost a lot of money, then limited liability would kick in. However, to deliberately cut safety culture and endanger the public is criminal.

[roenxi]

1. You're talking about a model that incentivises shareholders (with limited liability) to appoint incompetent CEOs who then take the fall for over-cutting safety standards. That isn't the best approach to safety - in fact, it would slightly reward the people most responsible for this situation because some of the liability would fall on the CEO rather than on profits.

That is neither fair nor helpful. Hit the company with a huge fine then let the board decide if the CEO stays or goes - that is how it is traditionally done and it is an effective model for getting results.

2. Deliberately changing a culture isn't criminal; that is something CEOs are expected to do sometimes. It is equivalent to saying a developer should be liable if they do an unnecessary refactor and it makes the code worse for a customer.

3.

> and endanger the public is criminal.

You say this but we allow car manufacturers to operate. Cars manufacturers have done more damage to people I know than Boeing could hope to. The focus on Boeing is hysterical.

[Zigurd]

You are assuming the same people blaming C-suite execs at Boeing would not blame the same people who OK'ed high grilles on pickup trucks that caused an increase in pedestrian deaths. That might be a bad assumption. "But there's no specific law," and "but consumer choice" don't cut it.

Change the incentives, change the targets of incentives, change the results.

[roenxi]

> But there's no specific law," ... don't cut it.

That does cut it. It is crazy to criminally prosecute someone if they haven't broken any law.

[Zigurd]

Cars are regulated for safety. High grills and raised trucks kill. Pedestrian deaths in the US go up because of these things while they are going down in the rest of the world. Are you really suggesting that we must have a law against high grills? Or does that fit a regulatory framework?

[roenxi]

> Are you really suggesting that we must have a law against high grills?

No. I'm suggesting that if there is a criminal inquiry into safety defects of a product, it should target the company as an entity, not company officers.

And that we should maintain consistent standards; ie, display more tolerance of Boeing's performance than people are showing.