Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 214 posts

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#31

Post by pmiller2 »

eindiran wrote: post #16
googlemike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should one interpret it then?

From the Wikipedia page: "Although the decision does not address "corporate personhood," a long-established judicial and constitutional concept, much attention has focused on that issue."[0] "How should one interpret [the case] then?" Recognize that Citizen's United is _not_ about corporate personhood, and actually read what the case was about. The number of times I've heard people making snarky remarks about Citizen…

Except corporations don’t have equal protection under law. They have more protection than individuals because they’re a device for absolving individuals of personal liability. The only penalty we seem to want to subject them to for any kind of wrongdoing is a fine, which is often not enough to deter the activity that caused them to receive said fine.

We need to make fines meaningful, start holding C-level execs personally responsible in some cases, and bring back the only penalty that matters to an immortal and amoral legal entity: the death penalty, via revocation of the corporate charter. Only then will we see the behavior of corporations start to change.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#32

Post by mullingitover »

ummonk wrote: post #12
ebg13 wrote: post #10

> Walmart was able to negotiate a lower fine after President Trump, who had previously criticized the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, took office. Can anyone explain a reason why someone who isn't a cad might not agree with the FCPA (ie. for reasons that aren't "money good, ethics bad")? This isn't a dig at Trump. I just don't understand the law well enough to know how angry I should be.

In theory it could unfairly handicap American companies relative to foreign companies. This doesn’t seem to have happened much in practice though so I support the FCPA. Corruption is a big scourge in many countries and it is a really good thing American money is prohibited from exacerbating the issue.

> In theory it could unfairly handicap American companies relative to foreign companies.

Seems like it would be sensible for the US to push the rest of the world to adopt the same law. We're able to push other countries to adopt our war on drugs laws, why not war on corruption?

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#33

Post by Consultant32452 »

Ensorceled wrote: post #20
Consultant32452 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will just play devil's advocate. Sometimes different cultures have very different ideas about what is an ethical way of doing things. If you're passing judgement on Walmart here, I think you're also passing judgement on Brazilian culture. Of course, you're welcome to do so, and I might even agree with you. But if you want to fine Walmart for doing things the "Brazilian way" while operating in Brazil, then I think i…

Does you advocacy extend to other “cultural differences” like child labour, age of consent laws, or indentured servitude?

There are some types of culturally accepted behaviors that I would and do get on my soap box and say we shouldn't do business with those places. A little grifting for building permits is not one of those.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#34

Post by pmiller2 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
frequentnapper wrote: post #8

Just a fine of ~280 mil, no jail time for any responsible. If corporations are people, why can't we jail walmart?

We can't jail Walmart, but we should be able to jail its CEO. Perhaps if being CEO meant taking the risk of jail for the corporation's misdeeds, the job would actually be worth the ridiculous salary it pays out, and provide a much stronger incentive for the CEO to police illegal conduct internally.

Why not the entire C-suite and the board? Then you’d get some real accountability.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#35

Post by geofft »

c3534l wrote: post #19
googlemike wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How should one interpret it then?

Human beings are allowed to organize for the purposes of political action and whether or not they decide to form a corporation doesn't matter because "corporation" isn't a constitutional concept. Further, "personhood" means you can sue the corporation, it can hold property, etc. Lawyers usual call "corporate personhood" "legal entity."

> Human beings are allowed to organize for the purposes of political action and whether or not they decide to form a corporation doesn't matter because "corporation" isn't a constitutional concept

Sure it does - if I am killed by a natural person due to negligence, the state can imprison the person who killed me. If I am killed by a corporation due to negligence, the state generally does not imprison any individual, because of the "corporate veil." If you get rid of the corporate veil, then that's totally fine with me. (It's just like, if human beings wish to organize for political action, they don't get any more votes that way - they still only vote as humans.)

> Further, "personhood" means you can sue the corporation, it can hold property, etc. Lawyers usual call "corporate personhood" "legal entity."

So, one of the common effects of prison is deprivation of the right to property - you don't get to access your house or the stuff in it while you're in prison. This is generally considered to be an important part of the deterrence. Why don't we do the same to corporations? Let's say that Walmart doesn't lose any of the property it owns, but for a period of a couple of years, it loses access to it.

Another side effect of jail is a loss or at least serious restriction on communications privileges with the outside world, which we can also equally well apply to corporations. Why don't we say that this applies to corporations too? While Walmart is imprisoned, no communications on behalf of the company can occur, except for access to its lawyer.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#36

Post by rjiekdnfk »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #17
frequentnapper wrote: post #8

Just a fine of ~280 mil, no jail time for any responsible. If corporations are people, why can't we jail walmart?

We can't jail Walmart, but we should be able to jail its CEO. Perhaps if being CEO meant taking the risk of jail for the corporation's misdeeds, the job would actually be worth the ridiculous salary it pays out, and provide a much stronger incentive for the CEO to police illegal conduct internally.

Well, the CEO can be jailed, but if HSBC case is illustrative then the the very top tier of the DOJ/FBI/ETC ordered any US Attorneys who’d be amenable to doing something like that to stand down.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#38

Post by pmiller2 »

fallingfrog wrote: post #24

“Culture is the foundation of everything we do at Walmart. We define culture as our values in action.. Service to the customer Respect for the individual Strive for excellence Act with integrity” -Wal Mart’s horseshit values statement, the same as the value statement of every other corporation. Why does every company bother doing this again?

Pretty much every corporation only has one value: make money for execs and shareholders. Everything and everyone else is secondary.

Re: Walmart Pleads Guilty After a Decade of Bribes

#39

Post by Consultant32452 »

tdeck wrote: post #30
Consultant32452 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will just play devil's advocate. Sometimes different cultures have very different ideas about what is an ethical way of doing things. If you're passing judgement on Walmart here, I think you're also passing judgement on Brazilian culture. Of course, you're welcome to do so, and I might even agree with you. But if you want to fine Walmart for doing things the "Brazilian way" while operating in Brazil, then I think i…

That assumes corruption exists in these countries because people are OK with it, but that doesn't square with everything I've read about corruption. It exists because corrupt systems are difficult to dismantle. By analogy, imagine someone from outside the US making the argument that it's "just our culture" that makes it OK for a lobbyist to walk into a senator's office with a $20,000 check in hand ready to discuss po…

If the people in power are abusive in some way, then advocate sanctions or something. Fining Walmart because a Brazilian Walmart employee living and working in Brazil greased few palms to get building permits seems like a fool's errand.
Post reply on HN