Well okay, that's true, but they would lose their jobs and not have billions of dollars to fall back on. So there is a strong personal element for them. In the classic pigs/chickens formulation, Elon is closer to the chicken side — he's got other companies to devote time to.

What are you talking about, CEOs take no responsebility.

Look at any recent disasters caused by companies, such as recent train crash with a toxic spill, boeing Max scandal, BP oil spill, 2008, anything.

Where has the CEO been personally punished?

Or does your idea of 'blamed' mean people will write something mean on twitter?

the press announce ment where CEO of Boeing took full responsebility for Boeing Max failure, CEOs of major banks took reaponsebility for 2008,

Being blamed has nothing to do with taking responsibility.

In this case, being blamed means that everyone will attribute the failure to him personally and say more nasty things about him and people will stop investing in his companies.

It would probably also quarter his net worth.

Sure. I guess just like Musk got blamed personally for his screw up with Twitter employees all over the world? He did a whole bunch of illegal stuff there, I'm still waiting to see consequences.

If they were actually illegal then we should see some settlements or court cases resolved over the next year or three. The justice system moves slowly.

He'll get fines ("settlements", I guess), and that will still have been cheaper than going the legal way. In the meantime many people lost their job in an irregular way (w.r.t. their country), and maybe they can't afford it.

That's how much responsibilities too rich people have: it's cheaper for them to go the illegal way and screw those who worked for them.

The fines will be handed out in such a way that obeying the law would have been cheaper. That's how things are done in Western Europe.

That's how it's supposed to be. I doubt it really is in practice (at least not always). Let me rephrase it to what I think is the reality:

"The fines will be handed out in such a way that obeying the law would have been cheaper as estimated by people who don't really have a way to know."

-> That's how lobbying works: people on both sides argue, and some rule decides for something in the middle. It's not exactly a formal proof.

Illegal or not, he faced no consequences for the screw up