4 ms·

This type of doublethink is what undermines confidence in the global order and rule of law. When some European/Western companies indulges in corruption and out

This type of doublethink is what undermines confidence in the global order and rule of law. When some European/Western companies indulges in corruption and out-and-out egregious behavior, it's "just boys being boys" and "too big to fail." A Chinese company indulges in some industrial espionage or uses that country's diplomatic levers and suddenly the sky is falling down. E.g., why is Volkswagen still in business after literally setting fire to the world? Why should Airbus not be summarily be liquidated in found guilty of corruption? Back in the day, news of such corruption would percolate slowly into the rest of world. That is no longer the case. News spreads quickly. People (like me) are watching and hoping that the standards get applied equally and if they don't, I like to think the strength in numbers and youth lies in the East, not the West.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
nerdponx 9y ago
FWIW this phenomenon has been happening since before the dawn of industrialization. If anything it's probably less of a problem in 2017 than it's ever been. That doesn't mean we should stop treating it like a problem. It just means we should look back on our sordid history as a species and take that as encouragement that we can keep improving. And it starts with awareness. Who today talks about the BP oil and Exxon Valdez oil spills, or Love Canal, or Enron†? †Execs only got prosecuted and convicted here because more powerful people lost money because of them.
achamayou 9y ago
Why do you think that liquidating companies that are employing tens of thousands, and providing transportation mechanisms for billions is a good idea? The market for civil airliners is already far too concentrated and dysfunctional, it'd be even worse with a single player (Boeing). Finding who's been involved in the decision-making process and punishing them harshly is fair and does send the right message. Destroying a large corporation arbitrarily doesn't. Besides, in both Volkswagen and Airbus cases, they're far from being the sole bad actors in their respective industries. You'd only hand their marketshare to others who've been slightly better at not getting caught but were really doing the same thing all along.
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Destroying companies hurts shareholders, who ultimately allow/encourage/demand their companies' bad behavior. If you're a fund manager, and the value of your Xyz Corp stock were at risk of going to $0 due to its execs' bad behavior, you would be incentivized to make sure the board is actually discouraging bad behavior. Without this threat, we have the situation we have today: Companies never get significantly punished for anything, "because jobs," and corruption is rampant.
  - tormeh 9y ago
    Shareholders don't have much insight or influence on the day-to-day in a business, so I don't think this would work very well.
    - aluhut 9y ago
      I don't think they would have to if anyone involved would face this ultimate payment for their misbehavior. However, I think that it would lead to even better mechanisms to hide the corruption and turn the lobby machine on. It's easy to lobby when a company has to be closed down and many uninvolved people lose their jobs. Which politician would like to face this anger? Maybe it's better to start the change from the other side. Make people understand and feel what it means if they are being cheated of their tax money.
  - achamayou 9y ago
    I don't think you understand the kind of access fund managers have to the companies they invest in. Surely you do realise that they are not poring over the source code written at the companies they invest in (or their contractors and subcontractors), nor read every email or every entry in every expense account. Shareholders of VW have already taken a massive hit when the stock tanked. Destroying the company would achieve nothing at all. The efficient and fair course of action is to prosecute the executives who made or authorised illegal decisions while minimising impact on those not involved. Shareholders are not a substitute for a court of law, and rash group punishment has never worked out well.
- 9y ago
KGIII 9y ago
Maybe because VW didn't 'literally' set 'fire to the world?'

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

nerdponx 9y ago

FWIW this phenomenon has been happening since before the dawn of industrialization. If anything it's probably less of a problem in 2017 than it's ever been. That doesn't mean we should stop treating it like a problem. It just means we should look back on our sordid history as a species and take that as encouragement that we can keep improving. And it starts with awareness. Who today talks about the BP oil and Exxon Valdez oil spills, or Love Canal, or Enron†? †Execs only got prosecuted and convicted here because more powerful people lost money because of them.

achamayou 9y ago

Why do you think that liquidating companies that are employing tens of thousands, and providing transportation mechanisms for billions is a good idea? The market for civil airliners is already far too concentrated and dysfunctional, it'd be even worse with a single player (Boeing). Finding who's been involved in the decision-making process and punishing them harshly is fair and does send the right message. Destroying a large corporation arbitrarily doesn't. Besides, in both Volkswagen and Airbus cases, they're far from being the sole bad actors in their respective industries. You'd only hand their marketshare to others who've been slightly better at not getting caught but were really doing the same thing all along.

ryandrake 9y ago
Destroying companies hurts shareholders, who ultimately allow/encourage/demand their companies' bad behavior. If you're a fund manager, and the value of your Xyz Corp stock were at risk of going to $0 due to its execs' bad behavior, you would be incentivized to make sure the board is actually discouraging bad behavior. Without this threat, we have the situation we have today: Companies never get significantly punished for anything, "because jobs," and corruption is rampant.
- tormeh 9y ago
  Shareholders don't have much insight or influence on the day-to-day in a business, so I don't think this would work very well.
  - aluhut 9y ago
    I don't think they would have to if anyone involved would face this ultimate payment for their misbehavior. However, I think that it would lead to even better mechanisms to hide the corruption and turn the lobby machine on. It's easy to lobby when a company has to be closed down and many uninvolved people lose their jobs. Which politician would like to face this anger? Maybe it's better to start the change from the other side. Make people understand and feel what it means if they are being cheated of their tax money.
- achamayou 9y ago
  I don't think you understand the kind of access fund managers have to the companies they invest in. Surely you do realise that they are not poring over the source code written at the companies they invest in (or their contractors and subcontractors), nor read every email or every entry in every expense account. Shareholders of VW have already taken a massive hit when the stock tanked. Destroying the company would achieve nothing at all. The efficient and fair course of action is to prosecute the executives who made or authorised illegal decisions while minimising impact on those not involved. Shareholders are not a substitute for a court of law, and rash group punishment has never worked out well.
9y ago

KGIII 9y ago

Maybe because VW didn't 'literally' set 'fire to the world?'