4 ms·
When you say "serious consequences", do you have any idea whether the people responsible have moved on to other similar jobs or are still working in the industr
by ACow_Adonis 10y ago
When you say "serious consequences", do you have any idea whether the people responsible have moved on to other similar jobs or are still working in the industry or living a similar lifestyle?
Because if they are, then I think we may have to disagree on what constitutes a "serious consequence", as per the original posters point.
And if we don't know that, then we're not really in a position to know if there have been sufficiently serious consequences for those involved.
Hell, I'll pay the 15 billion dollar fine if I can do it with Volkswagen money and you don't touch my assets, the money I took out of the company as salary while doing the crime, or jail me.
Serious consequences laid on a corporation don't do anything, because there's no conscious being there to react to, perceive, or experience those negative consequences. They especially don't do anything if you're managing other people's money and the executive class receives relatively little personal punishment.
- cmdrfred 10y agoReally it's punishing the innocent shareholders more than anything. Executive compensation is unlikely to fall at Volkswagen.
- damienkatz 10y agoShareholders are not innocent. It's their responsibility to bear, albeit limited, financial risk. It's therefore prudent for them to demand companies uphold legal and moral obligations, or move capital into ventures that will. Failure to do so means they are more likely to lose their investments.
- Unklejoe 10y agoI'm sure many shareholders had no idea this was happening. It's not like VW had a shareholder vote to decide whether to cheat on emissions or not.
- damienkatz 10y agoThen they should have invested in companies that have stricter controls, or put their money somewhere safer w/ more transparency. That some investors are unsophisticated doesn't absolve them of liability.
- Unklejoe 10y agoAll bets are off when we're talking about blatant violations of the law. Who's to say that "transparency" is even really transparent? What good are stricter controls when the people who are in charge of creating and enforcing them are the same people who are violating them? My point is that this could happen with any company and is part of the risk of investing, but to imply that the shareholders should have just "demanded companies to uphold legal and moral obligations" is assigning more stupidity on the shareholders than deserved. It usually goes without saying that shareholders expect the companies they're investing in to obey the law and not lie to them. Like I said, this is part of the risk of investing. There's always a chance the company you are investing in is cooking their books, lying, etc..., but the risk exists with any company and there's not much you can really do to mitigate it.
- justincormack 10y agoThe shareholders are suing too. They are probably the ones who want jail time most.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- d_e_solomon 10y agoAre you seriously suggesting that everyone who has a retirement plan that holds an index fund that has VW in it should be held accountable?
- d_e_solomon 10y agoAre you seriously suggesting that everyone who has a retirement plan that holds an index fund that has VW in it should be held accountable?