How about we just don’t have private ownership of the means of production so we stop guaranteeing that only the most ruthless and greedy humans can rise to power? Democratic control over workplaces would largely prevent the monopolization on decision-making by the psychopath class.
At this point, there is no justification for privatized control of the means of production.
Especially for AI.
When the purpose of a technology is to remove the ability to work from as many people as possible, there is no valid reason for that technology to in any way benefit individuals without first benefitting those whose jobs it destroys.
The wealthy are literally job destroyers. That is what they actually are.
That’s entirely because we don’t have democratic control of the economy. The reason the psychopath class is able to consolidate government power is because they own the economic power.
I’d like that to happen, but that’s sadly unlikely. Companies like Google and Microsoft should be global infrastructure under state control - even better would be UN control.
I said it’s unlikely, not impossible. I like to dream of a better future more in line with what we thought would be happening at the time when the internet was still young too.
At this point, we need to stop listening to ANYONE who says it’s impossible.
What is NOT possible is sustaining the current system as it currently functioning.
Literally anyone can look at the current system and identify that it can’t continue to function in this way. And I’m not arguing that people will say that it’s too cruel to continue. I’m saying that regardless of whether anyone is working to try to change the system, it’s just not logistically possible for things to continue functioning the way they’ve been functioning. The population doesn’t have any more to give, but the wealthy demand more profits and profits at an increasing break.
We are at a breaking point with or without people trying to break anything.
They should be however much the company made by breaking the rules, with a hefty addition included, inversely multiplied by the chance that the company was going to get caught.
For a company, deciding whether or not to break the law is a purely mathematical equation. If you can make $1M a day by breaking the law, there’s only a 1% chance per day that you’ll get caught, and the fine is only $5M? That’s a no brainer. To the company, they see a project with $1M income per day, a 99% success rate, and a $5M failure cost. All you need to do is go undetected for five days, and you’ve already made your money on the “investment”. Everything after that is pure profit.
So the fines should be adjusted to fit that model. Using those same numbers, the fine would be the $1M per day that the scheme was going (meaning any profit made is now completely forfeit), plus the $5M, multiplied by 99 because they only had a 1% chance of getting caught.
For a scheme that ran for 100 days before getting caught, (meaning they made $100M in profit) that fine would be a grand total of $10.395B… Not million. Billion. Because in order to deter companies from breaking the law, the punishment needs to account for the fact that the company is going to do the math on whether or not they’ll get caught, and what the fine is going to be. And when the company runs the numbers and decides that they have a 1% chance of getting caught, that should be a fucking terrifying number instead of just a slap on the wrist.
I love the idea. The math works out a bit different though. After 100 days it’s a 63% chance of getting caught so the fine would be 100/0.63= 159 million plus the additional fee. After 1 day the fine would be 1 million /0.01= 100 million plus the additional fee.
I love the actuarial precision of the fine so that all the probability of profit is priced in. Calculating that probability will be complex though because they could argue there is a 100% chance of getting caught after you caught them lol.
The death penalty’s only ethical application is when the subject is uncontainable by other means. The rich are proving that’s exactly the type of criminals they are, and when they do get close to getting caught the one guy who’s testimony could bury them mysteriously dies by ‘suicide’ at exactly the moment the cameras malfunction. I can’t think of a cabal of crooks more deserving of the death penalty.
I get where you’re coming from, but we as a society haven’t even TRIED to hold billionaires accountable. Do they make it difficult? Of course they do, but a huge percentage of the population still look up to the ultra rich and think they’re geniuses who deserve it.
If society ACTUALLY got fed up and demanded they be held accountable, and jail and seizing their assets wasn’t enough, then you consider more severe forms of punishment. As it stands right now we’re barely handing out the equivalent of an occasional speeding ticket to these people and wondering why it isn’t effective.
Rules stop mattering when companies have the wealth of multiple entire nations combined.
Imaginary wealth
All wealth is imaginary. If you have stocks “worth” X amount of money and can borrow real against it , it’s wealth.
Which means the fines must equal the wealth of at least one nation to matter. I’m all for that.
How about we just don’t have private ownership of the means of production so we stop guaranteeing that only the most ruthless and greedy humans can rise to power? Democratic control over workplaces would largely prevent the monopolization on decision-making by the psychopath class.
At this point, there is no justification for privatized control of the means of production.
Especially for AI.
When the purpose of a technology is to remove the ability to work from as many people as possible, there is no valid reason for that technology to in any way benefit individuals without first benefitting those whose jobs it destroys.
The wealthy are literally job destroyers. That is what they actually are.
Tbf we have democratic control in government and the psychopath class does just fine consolidating power.
That’s entirely because we don’t have democratic control of the economy. The reason the psychopath class is able to consolidate government power is because they own the economic power.
I’d like that to happen, but that’s sadly unlikely. Companies like Google and Microsoft should be global infrastructure under state control - even better would be UN control.
It’ll never happen for as long as you and people like you believe it’s impossible.
Once you all believe it is possible, it will become inevitable.
I said it’s unlikely, not impossible. I like to dream of a better future more in line with what we thought would be happening at the time when the internet was still young too.
It is ABSOLUTELY possible.
At this point, we need to stop listening to ANYONE who says it’s impossible.
What is NOT possible is sustaining the current system as it currently functioning.
Literally anyone can look at the current system and identify that it can’t continue to function in this way. And I’m not arguing that people will say that it’s too cruel to continue. I’m saying that regardless of whether anyone is working to try to change the system, it’s just not logistically possible for things to continue functioning the way they’ve been functioning. The population doesn’t have any more to give, but the wealthy demand more profits and profits at an increasing break.
We are at a breaking point with or without people trying to break anything.
And any fines are essentially pennies that just get factored into the cost of doing business.
costs that just get passed onto the consumer anyway.
Yes fines should be a percentage for exp 5-20% of company valuation.
Valuation can be manipulated, it should be gross income.
They should be however much the company made by breaking the rules, with a hefty addition included, inversely multiplied by the chance that the company was going to get caught.
For a company, deciding whether or not to break the law is a purely mathematical equation. If you can make $1M a day by breaking the law, there’s only a 1% chance per day that you’ll get caught, and the fine is only $5M? That’s a no brainer. To the company, they see a project with $1M income per day, a 99% success rate, and a $5M failure cost. All you need to do is go undetected for five days, and you’ve already made your money on the “investment”. Everything after that is pure profit.
So the fines should be adjusted to fit that model. Using those same numbers, the fine would be the $1M per day that the scheme was going (meaning any profit made is now completely forfeit), plus the $5M, multiplied by 99 because they only had a 1% chance of getting caught.
For a scheme that ran for 100 days before getting caught, (meaning they made $100M in profit) that fine would be a grand total of $10.395B… Not million. Billion. Because in order to deter companies from breaking the law, the punishment needs to account for the fact that the company is going to do the math on whether or not they’ll get caught, and what the fine is going to be. And when the company runs the numbers and decides that they have a 1% chance of getting caught, that should be a fucking terrifying number instead of just a slap on the wrist.
I love the idea. The math works out a bit different though. After 100 days it’s a 63% chance of getting caught so the fine would be 100/0.63= 159 million plus the additional fee. After 1 day the fine would be 1 million /0.01= 100 million plus the additional fee.
I love the actuarial precision of the fine so that all the probability of profit is priced in. Calculating that probability will be complex though because they could argue there is a 100% chance of getting caught after you caught them lol.
I say we start arresting board members until thing stop sucking. Death penalty on the table.
Death penalty is barbaric, lets not sink to that level.
How about we sink to this level?
The death penalty’s only ethical application is when the subject is uncontainable by other means. The rich are proving that’s exactly the type of criminals they are, and when they do get close to getting caught the one guy who’s testimony could bury them mysteriously dies by ‘suicide’ at exactly the moment the cameras malfunction. I can’t think of a cabal of crooks more deserving of the death penalty.
I get where you’re coming from, but we as a society haven’t even TRIED to hold billionaires accountable. Do they make it difficult? Of course they do, but a huge percentage of the population still look up to the ultra rich and think they’re geniuses who deserve it.
If society ACTUALLY got fed up and demanded they be held accountable, and jail and seizing their assets wasn’t enough, then you consider more severe forms of punishment. As it stands right now we’re barely handing out the equivalent of an occasional speeding ticket to these people and wondering why it isn’t effective.