David Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Oct 20

Traditionally, financial crashes are the best time to get tighter regulations passed, so now is probably a good time to start planning for the AI crash. Here is the starting point for my wishlist:

  • Companies may not issue dividends or share buybacks while they have any outstanding debt.
  • Companies above a $1bn valuation may not invest in companies up or down their supply chain without regulatory approval.
  • Companies above a $500bn valuation may not invest in companies up or down their supply chain at all.
  • Companies with a valuation above $500bn are automatically investigated for anticompetitive behaviour every three years. If they have not addressed all of the issues found in one investigation by the time the next takes place, they are split up into multiple companies, with no exceptions.
  • The rules for when companies must be taken public (and therefore have public reporting duties) are adjusted to apply to beneficial owners, having 500 people invest in a fund that invests in the company counts as 500 investors, not one.
  • Any CxO found to have misled investors is stripped of all shares they were awarded, any income from sale of shares, and any earnings above the median wage of their company, and banned from ever holding company directorships or CxO positions again.

What’s on your list?

Show threadAaronOct 20
@david_chisnall I 100% agree in principle.

I'd adjust the size limits - specified here in dollars - into something elastic that is able to automatically adapt with the times without Congress adjusting them.

I realize that complicates things, possibly a lot. But watching a multibillion dollar company nearly kill my best friend and pay only $4,000 in fines for wrecking her body left a dent in my soul.

These numbers are great, now. Make sure they're good 100 years later too.
Show threadDavid Chisnall (*Now with 50% more sarcasm!*)Oct 20
@aaron Yup, when you translate them to legislative form you’d want them to be tied to GDP or median income or something. Initial numbers are rough ballparks to within an order of magnitude.
Show threadAaron
@david_chisnall Thank you!

There's a lot of existing laws, not just OSHA related, that are effectively obsolete these days but only because the cutoff number is wrong.

It's been six years and it's still somewhat of a personal crusade for me to make sure people understand.
Oct 20 at 1:49amWeb
Show threadSalacious CrumbOct 20

@aaron Will also need to regulate the terms. When everything is based on "valuation" and you can change your valuation with a press release or a bad quarter, the rules don't mean much.

Need to buy that company? Layoff a bunch of people to drop our valuation for a few months.

Show threadAaronOct 20
@salaciouscrumb You aren't wrong.

And this gets extremely subjective, fast - which is exactly why I said it "complicates" things upthread.

In the specific case of OSHA - for those not in the United States, it's the government organization intended to ensure workers aren't risking death or injury just by working - I think a percentage of payroll would be perfect.

A small contractor, with a single old pickup truck, would get hit with a fine they could absorb but survive - and would do their best to never let that happen again.

That multibilliondollar company that hurt my friend would get a fine so big shareholders, if not God himself, would notice - and yet survive, changing their ways so it doesn't happen ever again.