• circuscritic@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    The phrase “cost of doing business” doesn’t mean “bankrupt” or “righteous penalty”, it means, especially in this context, that it’s an normalized and accepted business expenditure because of our corrupt regulatory system whereby white collar crime is NOT punished by meaningful punitive actions that would create a deterrence. Instead, any punitive measures can simply be accounted for as a “cost of doing business”.

    Let me give you a hyperbolic but extremely simple example:

    CEO: Let’s commit a fraud worth $100m

    VP: But that’s illegal

    CEO: Yes, but the fine would only be around $5m

    CFO: Perfect, I’ll add a $5m expenditure under the “cost of doing business” line item

    VP: Wow, that’s a great $5m expenditure, we’ll net $95m in profit

    CEO: Yep, that’s just the cost of doing business.

    Make sense?

    • SuckMyWang@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m aware of what you are saying and I agree but only to a point. I’m saying that even as a “normal” cost of doing business the size of the fine is not normal. To take your example it’s like this:

      CEO: “Lets commit 32 BILLION dollars of fraud.”

      VP: “That’s illegal.”

      CEO: “Yes but the fine would only be around $5m.”

      VP: “Sir, I’m not condoning this but that estimate seems absurdly low for the size of the fraud?

      CEO: “You’re right, the fine should be much much higher. Can we afford to get a $500m fine as a normal operating cost?”

      CFO: “We can. I’ll also talk to my connections in Washington to get the amount lowered and anything else will be gravy. Also, VP you’re fired!”