3 ms·
It may be appropriate, but that is such a rare tool to have used, you could argue that it should be avoided at all costs. Watching the government unravel compan
by cdolan 9y ago
It may be appropriate, but that is such a rare tool to have used, you could argue that it should be avoided at all costs. Watching the government unravel companies just strikes me as dangerous.
That said, I find these credit agencies to be absurd, and need to either disappear or 100% change their business.
- ouid 9y ago>you could argue that it should be avoided at all costs ok, argue this.
- fasteddie 9y agoBecause at some point along the spectrum, the truly bad, "don't deserve to exist" companies eventually turns into the government and party in power picking winners and losers. Depending on the party, this could be anyone from Goldman Sachs to Monsanto to the Washington Post, to Peabody Energy (coal). Normalizing the corporate death penalty starts the ball rolling towards this end.
- kelnos 9y agoI don't buy slippery-slope arguments as a general rule. The tool (corporate charter revocation) exists for a reason, and should be used if that reason is met. Sure, we must be constantly vigilant to ensure the tool isn't used for evil or with bias, but that's true of anything that can be used for good or bad.
- ouid 9y agoIt's pursued in the judicial system. Our judiciary has been, in the past, fairly non-partisan.