I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only way to make fines have any teeth for companies like this is for states to fine companies in equity, not cash. Shareholders will force change if the state might realistically become the majority shareholder and in doing so dilute everyone else's holding.
1% a week per breach ought to do it.
Added to my list of things to do if I ever become a dictator by chance.
And well, we're living through a period where we're rapidly accruing evidence every day of how bad the alternative is.
For what it is worth, I'd like to see companies like Meta, Alphabet, and Amazon turned into global cooperatives governed by their employees and users. These would be the largest democracies the world has ever seen and would almost certainly be governed more sensibly than they are today.
Just levy a fine. From the corporate death penalty to this stuff, it’s all just fines with financial engineering. Cut out the bankers and lawyers and just levy a bloody fine.
Every problem you think you’re solving by adding extra steps simply compounds the complexity of levying massive fines while distracting from them.
Of course there is: who would buy shares that can be stolen by the state?
This is why moralisers shouldn't design systems: they miss even the most glaringly obvious consequences of their OTT punishments.
The idea of property is a legal one. It has no other basis in the world - if a democracy decides that property is forfeit if the law is broken, that is perfectly fine. See also, wealth taxes.
People already buy shares in these companies because they are profitable, and likely to remain so in the future. The problem is passive investment (which is forced on most people as pension funds don't "pass through" the right to vote) means people don't have to govern these organisations to protect the value of their investments. Fines are the cost of doing business.
If the stakes were "use it lawfully or lose it" the shareholders might realistically become more inclined to take action against boards who allow mismanagement. That's what this is, by the way: mismanagement with global consequences.
Investment won't go anywhere because people will always seek a return on their capital. The idea that they would rather see that capital inactive and atrophying over time rather than complying with simple and clear rules around corporate conduct is absurd.
I mean, it doesn't matter. The people with the jails are the people who write the rules that say how much of my effort I keep.
The difference is: we have a well-defined separation between money (a tool to communicate relative value) and ownership. Moving the government into the taking things you own business is a bad idea.
They aren't talking about anything like this. The companies can avoid turning over equity by not getting fined. I don't think this is quite the right approach, but I do think we should consider other options. For example, getting fined means that stockholders can't get payouts and execs couldn't get bonuses or anything outside of their base monetary salary. These sorts of things make it harder to just write off a fine as "cost of business" even if the fine itself is low.
Norway can do this to the Norwegian entity. It has no jurisdiction over the global company.
It is worth remembering that there's no such thing as a "global" company, by the way. These are largely American companies. They are structured to be unaccountable to other countries, and this is one of the ways in which american imperialism works.
Not how sovereignty works. Oslo’s extraterritorial enforcement is bound by treaties that set limits on what it can do. It ultimately requires others’ coöperation.
In practice, we delegate this to courts. The EU’s track record there is put to shame only by the FTC. Oslo, uniquely, seems to be ignoring the siren calls of fist pounding to populists in favour of prodding Facebook to change.
Do you disagree with corporations being held accountable, or do you have an alternative proposal that doesn't let them get away with murder, so to speak?
I genuinely don't understand how you read it this way. We already have mechanisms in place to punish companies, and send their directors to jail. Stealing them from their owners is the only thing I am criticising.
I mean, look:
> Making all companies state-owned might have some historically-evidenced downsides.
Where there do you read, "we should stop fining companies and holding their directors accountable"?