4 ms·

For a "corporate death penalty" why would the state need to concern itself with the notion of shareholders to begin with? Loss of stake would merely be a part o

For a "corporate death penalty" why would the state need to concern itself with the notion of shareholders to begin with? Loss of stake would merely be a part of the penalty. There's certainly precedent outside of the US for nationalization of corporate resources.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> There's certainly precedent outside of the US for nationalization of corporate resources You can’t just take shareholders’ stuff because you don’t like what management did. More directly, protecting property rights is a cornerstone to our multi-century economic success.
- bostik 9y ago
  But you can forbid any government body to do business with them. And you can extend that by forbidding government bodies from doing business with any companies that in turn do business with the particular bad egg. In case of Equifax, that would probably amount to a public execution.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    That’s fine, and I think it should be encouraged. I also think they should be fined, held liable for money damages in court, and that their executives should be investigated with the potential of resulting in jail time. You have to find ways to take the money from the company, however, not directly from the shareholders.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  Perhaps if shareholders lost or were at risk of losing their stuff, they’d take much more interest in what management did, and demand avoiding behaviors that would increase that risk. It is bad for society when a corporation can engage in socially damaging activity, and then those involved—including shareholders who are profiting from the behavior—are insulated from experiencing the loss.
- JoBrad 9y ago
  > You can’t just take shareholders’ stuff because you don’t like what management did. Isn’t that what a fine or property seizure does?

4 ms·

For a "corporate death penalty" why would the state need to concern itself with the notion of shareholders to begin with? Loss of stake would merely be a part o

by bowlich 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> There's certainly precedent outside of the US for nationalization of corporate resources You can’t just take shareholders’ stuff because you don’t like what management did. More directly, protecting property rights is a cornerstone to our multi-century economic success.
- bostik 9y ago
  But you can forbid any government body to do business with them. And you can extend that by forbidding government bodies from doing business with any companies that in turn do business with the particular bad egg. In case of Equifax, that would probably amount to a public execution.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    That’s fine, and I think it should be encouraged. I also think they should be fined, held liable for money damages in court, and that their executives should be investigated with the potential of resulting in jail time. You have to find ways to take the money from the company, however, not directly from the shareholders.
- bobwaycott 9y ago
  Perhaps if shareholders lost or were at risk of losing their stuff, they’d take much more interest in what management did, and demand avoiding behaviors that would increase that risk. It is bad for society when a corporation can engage in socially damaging activity, and then those involved—including shareholders who are profiting from the behavior—are insulated from experiencing the loss.
- JoBrad 9y ago
  > You can’t just take shareholders’ stuff because you don’t like what management did. Isn’t that what a fine or property seizure does?