7 ms·

>though I hope you're joking about the guillotine I read that remark as this: If corporations are people legally, there should be certain crimes that lead to t

>though I hope you're joking about the guillotine I read that remark as this: If corporations are people legally, there should be certain crimes that lead to their dissolution. I assumed this was the proposal: If a corporation does something evil enough, its leaders going to prison and paying a fine isn't enough, it should face the corporate guillotine which revokes its incorporation.

Sacho 10y ago
What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? Are you going to seize the assets of the corporation and redistribute them? How is your proposed dissolution different from a fine big enough to bankrupt a company?
- gonzo41 10y ago
  Just quickly on my phone before I run to grab the train. You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage. The people left high and dry by the loss of investment get the signal that there is more risk in involving yourself in companies that can really stuff people over through negligence or greed I mean really after the damage that was done, you don't think companies like BP should still exist. How about all those resource companies walking over the people of the third world. etc etc. As for cutting peoples heads off...Who knows what this new america will bring :)
  - Sacho 10y ago
    > You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage VW could pay the damages in its particular case without dissolution. What would you do with the extra money after liquidating its assets? It seems like you're simply arguing for even bigger fines.
    - hvidgaard 10y ago
      Not the parent. If the company can pay for fines, fine. No need to dissolve them, but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge. Just because you're part of a corporation, shouldn't mean you get to walk from crimes.
      - Sacho 10y ago
        Kind of like this? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-43-billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties-six https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-gu...
        hvidgaard 10y ago
        Just like that.
        antivw 10y ago
        That link says that VW agreed to pay $2.8 billion in fines for defrauding 590,000 car owners and cheating on emissions tests. $2.8 billion/590K vehicles < $5K/vehicle. That's a good start on fines. Now make them reimburse 590K owners. Let's see... A Jetta has an MSRP of >$20K. So, how about reimbursing $5K-$10K of every diesel vehicle that was fraudulently sold? Or, force VW to buy them all back at original MSRP. Then they could resell them for whatever they could get for them. Would you pay $10K for a 2 year old cheater Jetta? Edit: removed typo
      - claudius 10y ago
        > but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge There’s your problem, assuming that there is a way for leadership in a company not be responsible. Managers being ‘responsible’ is the only argument for them being paid disproportionally more than the average worker. In turn, a manager should always be responsible for the actions of their underlings all the way to the top, regardless of personal involvement in or knowledge of those actions. The idea that the management of a company could not be responsible for something done by that company (which, e.g. could have resulted in considerable savings for the company and its shareholders) is simply ludicrous.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? And the small-timers, with their meagre holdings and pension funds would be wiped out. Corporations aren't monolithic; they are a collection of people working for and owning stake in. Their dissolution wouldn't be small and contained, it would be large and messy.
- voidlogic 10y ago
  >What would that gain you? This is a deterrent and would be very disruptive to the owners conducting business. It would discourage investors from elevating questionable people to boards of directors. It could be something like this: 1. Sell/auction assets 2. Pay fines and damages and debts 3. Split remaining proceeds amongst non-legally culpable share holders
bmmayer1 10y ago
Right, but one of the issues is that a corporate "person" isn't the same as an individual person, and they don't overlap completely. They are only treated as persons under the law with regard to certain rights/obligations (sue and be sued, open a bank account, pay taxes, etc). But a corporation isn't a person for purposes of criminal culpability; i.e. you could never arrest a corporation for murder. Though corporations are just groups of individuals who themselves could absolutely be guilty of crimes. There's a whole section in the Wikipedia article on corporate personhood that addresses these misconceptions[1]. I guess the real world "corporate guillotine" is for a corporation to be sued/fined out of existence or go bankrupt, all of which can happen due to gross negligence, bad behavior, or criminal behavior (see: Gawker Media, Bear Stearns, etc). But obviously jail is reserved for individuals who commit actual crimes, not corporations who are, after all, merely legal vehicles for pooling resources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Misconcep...
- occamrazor 10y ago
  In some jurisdictions (e.g. France) corporations can be subjected to criminal prosecution. The penalty can include forced dissolution of the enterprise.
- forgetsusername 10y ago
  >Though corporations are just groups of individuals who themselves could absolutely be guilty of crimes. ...or completely innocent of crimes. I think it's important to remember that when there's talk about beheading corporate executives (and this isn't the first time I've read that on these forums): people are more likely to be innocent than not.
justaman 10y ago
Killing off one of the largest employers in the world is a volatile maneuver. Surely there should be consequences, however perhaps a tier-based system for violations is needed. Suddenly closing the door on .... GM for example would be catastrophic for the US(hence the government bailout many economists supported). It may be that to properly punish or deter corporations from malicious decisions, the board of directors and majority stock holders should be punished too.
- antivw 10y ago
  GM should have been allowed to fail. Because, of course, no sensible capitalist would have stood by and watched all those assests disappear. Toyota would have bought a factory here, Nissan a factory there. Robots would have been sold off, etc. Ford and Hyundai would have ramped up production and would have needed additional employees. And somebody would have stepped in to buy what was left of GM for 10 cents on the dollar. It would have been very disruptive, yes. But within two years or so, the market would have adjusted. And there would be some incentive to not have anyone get too big to fail. As it stands, the incentive is to not let anyone be punished too much no matter how bad they act. Wells Fargo should have gone out of business when thousands of employees were caught stealing from customers. Every shareholder should have lost everything. Of course the shareholders didn't commit the offence, but it would teach a lesson to be more responsible in investments, and make sure that the companies you invest in play square. It might give Boards a different set of priorities when they negotiate the contracts of CEOs.

Sacho 10y ago

What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? Are you going to seize the assets of the corporation and redistribute them? How is your proposed dissolution different from a fine big enough to bankrupt a company?

gonzo41 10y ago
Just quickly on my phone before I run to grab the train. You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage. The people left high and dry by the loss of investment get the signal that there is more risk in involving yourself in companies that can really stuff people over through negligence or greed I mean really after the damage that was done, you don't think companies like BP should still exist. How about all those resource companies walking over the people of the third world. etc etc. As for cutting peoples heads off...Who knows what this new america will bring :)
- Sacho 10y ago
  > You dissolve the entity and sell the assests to pay back the costs of damage VW could pay the damages in its particular case without dissolution. What would you do with the extra money after liquidating its assets? It seems like you're simply arguing for even bigger fines.
  - hvidgaard 10y ago
    Not the parent. If the company can pay for fines, fine. No need to dissolve them, but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge. Just because you're part of a corporation, shouldn't mean you get to walk from crimes.
    - Sacho 10y ago
      Kind of like this? https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-guilty-and-pay-43-billion-criminal-and-civil-penalties-six https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/volkswagen-ag-agrees-plead-gu...
      - hvidgaard 10y ago
        Just like that.
      - antivw 10y ago
        That link says that VW agreed to pay $2.8 billion in fines for defrauding 590,000 car owners and cheating on emissions tests. $2.8 billion/590K vehicles < $5K/vehicle. That's a good start on fines. Now make them reimburse 590K owners. Let's see... A Jetta has an MSRP of >$20K. So, how about reimbursing $5K-$10K of every diesel vehicle that was fraudulently sold? Or, force VW to buy them all back at original MSRP. Then they could resell them for whatever they could get for them. Would you pay $10K for a 2 year old cheater Jetta? Edit: removed typo
    - claudius 10y ago
      > but the leadership responsible still needs to face a judge There’s your problem, assuming that there is a way for leadership in a company not be responsible. Managers being ‘responsible’ is the only argument for them being paid disproportionally more than the average worker. In turn, a manager should always be responsible for the actions of their underlings all the way to the top, regardless of personal involvement in or knowledge of those actions. The idea that the management of a company could not be responsible for something done by that company (which, e.g. could have resulted in considerable savings for the company and its shareholders) is simply ludicrous.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>What would that gain you? Wouldnt the same capital holders pool their wealth into a newly minted corporation to continue exploiting the resources they have accrued? And the small-timers, with their meagre holdings and pension funds would be wiped out. Corporations aren't monolithic; they are a collection of people working for and owning stake in. Their dissolution wouldn't be small and contained, it would be large and messy.
voidlogic 10y ago
>What would that gain you? This is a deterrent and would be very disruptive to the owners conducting business. It would discourage investors from elevating questionable people to boards of directors. It could be something like this: 1. Sell/auction assets 2. Pay fines and damages and debts 3. Split remaining proceeds amongst non-legally culpable share holders

bmmayer1 10y ago

Right, but one of the issues is that a corporate "person" isn't the same as an individual person, and they don't overlap completely. They are only treated as persons under the law with regard to certain rights/obligations (sue and be sued, open a bank account, pay taxes, etc). But a corporation isn't a person for purposes of criminal culpability; i.e. you could never arrest a corporation for murder. Though corporations are just groups of individuals who themselves could absolutely be guilty of crimes. There's a whole section in the Wikipedia article on corporate personhood that addresses these misconceptions[1]. I guess the real world "corporate guillotine" is for a corporation to be sued/fined out of existence or go bankrupt, all of which can happen due to gross negligence, bad behavior, or criminal behavior (see: Gawker Media, Bear Stearns, etc). But obviously jail is reserved for individuals who commit actual crimes, not corporations who are, after all, merely legal vehicles for pooling resources. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Misconceptions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood#Misconcep...

occamrazor 10y ago
In some jurisdictions (e.g. France) corporations can be subjected to criminal prosecution. The penalty can include forced dissolution of the enterprise.
forgetsusername 10y ago
>Though corporations are just groups of individuals who themselves could absolutely be guilty of crimes. ...or completely innocent of crimes. I think it's important to remember that when there's talk about beheading corporate executives (and this isn't the first time I've read that on these forums): people are more likely to be innocent than not.

justaman 10y ago

Killing off one of the largest employers in the world is a volatile maneuver. Surely there should be consequences, however perhaps a tier-based system for violations is needed. Suddenly closing the door on .... GM for example would be catastrophic for the US(hence the government bailout many economists supported). It may be that to properly punish or deter corporations from malicious decisions, the board of directors and majority stock holders should be punished too.

antivw 10y ago
GM should have been allowed to fail. Because, of course, no sensible capitalist would have stood by and watched all those assests disappear. Toyota would have bought a factory here, Nissan a factory there. Robots would have been sold off, etc. Ford and Hyundai would have ramped up production and would have needed additional employees. And somebody would have stepped in to buy what was left of GM for 10 cents on the dollar. It would have been very disruptive, yes. But within two years or so, the market would have adjusted. And there would be some incentive to not have anyone get too big to fail. As it stands, the incentive is to not let anyone be punished too much no matter how bad they act. Wells Fargo should have gone out of business when thousands of employees were caught stealing from customers. Every shareholder should have lost everything. Of course the shareholders didn't commit the offence, but it would teach a lesson to be more responsible in investments, and make sure that the companies you invest in play square. It might give Boards a different set of priorities when they negotiate the contracts of CEOs.