and how did they get free of their crimes?

it was because they had control over the currency system.

the only way a corporation doesn't get convicted of its crime was cause the fiat system and corporatism.

In a free market capitalistic economy,money isn't fiat

we haven't had free market since 1913 when the Federal Reserve System was created.

In the cases I'm thinking about they often did get convicted and fined huge amounts of money, in some cases the directors got sent to jail. As I said them being convicted did not do much to help the people who lost out.

Changing the money system will not suddenly change human nature.

often..............................lmao

abnking fraud isn't a debate but factual so stop using such words.

research a bit on fiat money vs gold standard and you will understand why close 90% of todays world problems come from there.

what do you mean by human nature?

human life and soceity would be better if money creation was changed

Yes the company will go bankrupt and the directors will go to jail. Will that make up for the lost lives or the environmental damage?

And people would try and cut corners if they could. Even with regulation they do their best to.

We are talking about different things. My comments are on how corporations will enter into high return ventures with significant risks to the environment or people if given the chance. Your comments seem to be on banking fraud.

Yes, it will. Other companies will take note of the punishment visited on the bankrupt business and jailed directors, and change their practices to respect the environment.

For example, if during the BP oil spill, there were no liability caps on what BP would have to pay out, don't you think that the threat of losing hundreds of billions of dollars (potentially) would cause them to respond to the crisis much quicker? What about Exxon and others operating out of the region - do you not believe that they would go over their practices to ensure they were of the highest standards?

We've made great strides in efficiency and respect to the environment without government mandates. When the government forces compliance on companies, it creates unintended consequences. Businesses then have to work inside a mandated framework, which may leave out potential gains of efficency in other areas of the company.

For example, I use the analogy of cars very often. Due to the massive amount of compliance required to build, own, and operate a car manufacturer in the US, development of new car companies is virtually unheard of, outside of something like the Tesla Roadster, which was founded by a billionaire. Comparatively, if restrictions on factories, manufacturing, and safety requirements of road-worthy vehicles was lessened, we may see innovative, efficient cars brought to market faster because they didn't have to spend tens of millions of dollars on compliance. Instead, we have an American triopoly which has existed in the US car manufacturing sphere for almost a century.

Comparatively, look at a nearly unregulated industry such as computers. We find incredible advancements in technology and energy efficencies without govenment mandates. One wonders how stunted computers would be if the government put arbitrary limits on what manufacturers could put into a PC.

Yes, it will. Other companies will take note of the punishment visited on the bankrupt business and jailed directors, and change their practices to respect the environment.

For example, if during the BP oil spill, there were no liability caps on what BP would have to pay out, don't you think that the threat of losing hundreds of billions of dollars (potentially) would cause them to respond to the crisis much quicker? What about Exxon and others operating out of the region - do you not believe that they would go over their practices to ensure they were of the highest standards?

We've made great strides in efficiency and respect to the environment without government mandates. When the government forces compliance on companies, it creates unintended consequences. Businesses then have to work inside a mandated framework, which may leave out potential gains of efficency in other areas of the company.

For example, I use the analogy of cars very often. Due to the massive amount of compliance required to build, own, and operate a car manufacturer in the US, development of new car companies is virtually unheard of, outside of something like the Tesla Roadster, which was founded by a billionaire. Comparatively, if restrictions on factories, manufacturing, and safety requirements of road-worthy vehicles was lessened, we may see innovative, efficient cars brought to market faster because they didn't have to spend tens of millions of dollars on compliance. Instead, we have an American triopoly which has existed in the US car manufacturing sphere for almost a century.

Comparatively, look at a nearly unregulated industry such as computers. We find incredible advancements in technology and energy efficencies without govenment mandates. One wonders how stunted computers would be if the government put arbitrary limits on what manufacturers could put into a PC.

You're still ignoring the basic fact that capitalism by its nature encourages high risk ventures. The possibility of something going wrong and the punishments that follow are one of those risks. People weigh up the risks of going ahead against the rewards in terms of the bottom line. The idea of regulation is to stop companies from considering them as risks that are allowed if the rewards are high enough.

In terms of the BP oil spill I believe they actually waived the limited liability right at the begining of the crisis.

The technology industry isn't well suited to this discussion as the risks to people and environment are generally fairly low by the nature of the industry itself. The industries to look at are things like the chemical, pharmaceutical, automobile and pharmaceutical industries.

I don't see why "true free-market capitalism would kill the planet, kill people and screw workers" ...

For the most part, companies (regardless of whether they're large corporations or small businesses) are driven to act in ways that their clients/customers, investors, and employees desire; and this is rarely in a way that is excessively damaging in the long run.

If you release a drug onto the market without adequate testing you will face a massive class-action lawsuit and lose billions of dollars. If you dig an oil well that causes environmental damage you will either face a substantial fee to clean the land imposed by the land-owner or face substantial negative coverage due to the influence of environmental groups.

Realistically, I don't think anyone is arguing for the elimination of all government regulation, but the vast majority of government regulation is completely unnecessary and primarily designed to protect the interest of large powerful incumbents.