111–120 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is that inherent? i haven't read Capital, but this doesn't seem so much of an inherent problem with capitalism than it seems like a very dumb implementation liability protection.
What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is that inherent? i haven't read Capital, but this doesn't seem so much of an inherent problem with capitalism than it seems like a very dumb implementation liability protection.
What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
1) the fine needs to be fair to the society (often we see these "slap on the wrist" fines for big corps, that's just disgusting and shows how much our democracies are disfunctional)
2) i suggest this because i want the shareholders to be pushing their companies to ethical behavior.
3) it is very important that companies are also held liable for unethical behavior in other countries, and/or even for unethical behavior of subsidiaries (the foxcons and the likes).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
It's a feature when it's good faith efforts. It's very clearly a bug when it's used to evade no end of abuse, illegality and fraud, or to avoid paying the pollution cleanup. There probably needs to be some exceptional way in law to pierce the shell of limited liability and go after officers, perhaps even claw back from investors and shareholders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all they are responsible for thousands of deaths. And they knew it. I don't know why they aren't in jail already.
That's because of the "limited" of private limited. (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that recommendation in the first place was an act of bad faith. This seems a bit of a stretch to me. The doctors prescribed it, even given readily available research, the FDA approved it, knowing full well this was a risk. Those are the guilty parties here. Purdue filled their role just fine, they just happened to be making an opiate and so they're getting chased for it now because China is dumping fentanyl. Pretty…
According to the congressional report: “Purdue Pharma used front organizations and sponsored research to deceive the World Health Organization and corrupt global public health policies” If that is true and public policy was corruptly manipulated , how can you claim that this is all ok because it was allowed by public policy?
Public policy that can be readily manipulated by bad actors (as the drug industry is certainly full of) should not be used as the final say for anything. Systems need to be able to tolerate: corruption, false information, and true but misleading information. Our regulatory systems in general seem to struggle with any of the above. If "health authorities" (to avoid naming any particular organization) can only effectively screen out good actors inadvertently engaged in bad behavior, then they're effectively useless - because bad actors do exist, and they're vastly more dangerous than the former.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What do you suggest instead? The possibility to bankrupt a company without losing more than you put into the venture is in my eyes a feature of capitalism, not a bug.
i thought limited liabilites are a recent invention associated with neoliberalization of the 80s.
One naive question - why are doctors who overperscribed opiates still allowed to practice medicine?
We spent the better part of decade catching and locking up doctors who prescribed opioids out of guidelines, so much so that doctors are now terrified of prescribing them to people who legitimately need them. The problem is that the prescribing guidelines, which were written by the pharmaceutical companies themselves, described a regimen that would get pretty much anyone physically addicted to their product. So you h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all they are responsible for thousands of deaths. And they knew it. I don't know why they aren't in jail already.
That's because of the "limited" of private limited. (Under capitalism) many costs of having PtLds are externalized.
This is why I think the argument that a corporation only has a duty to it's stockholders is rank bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That just sends the message that the rich can get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people and will just seek new ways to get rich by ruining the lives of however many thousands of people.
Purdue never prescribed opioids to anyone. They only sold them to hospitals and doctors, after the FDA let them do it. Not sure what message punishing them is supposed to send? But I get it. Someone dies and it’s the drug dealers fault, and punishing them will make everyone feel better. Except it doesn’t do anything about the actual problem (opioid addiction). It feels to me like the elation here is because the Sackl…