6 ms·

I would go one step further. Nationalize the company. There is always talk about "if companies are people, how do we punish them when they break the law?". Wel

I would go one step further. Nationalize the company. There is always talk about "if companies are people, how do we punish them when they break the law?". Well, what about nationalizing them for the public good for a certain number of years that matches what a person would get in prison for a similar crime? Purdue Pharmaceuticals could be put under the umbrella of Medicaid and ordered to manufacture generic drugs for the next 30 to 50 years (or forever if contributing to tens of thousands of deaths would be equivalent to a life sentence)

rayiner 7y ago
How does it serve the public interest to have government management run a company into the ground? Do you want more Amtraks? That’s how you get more Amtraks. If you want a nuclear bomb for corporate misconduct, it seems like the best approach would be to distribute the shares to the victims while keeping the company privately owned and operated. (Downvoters are on the wrong side of history. Nationalizing companies is a failed experiment. Privatization of state-owned companies is one of the few things nearly everyone agree on, from the US to Sweden to putatively Marxist countries like Vietnam: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2018/12/30/vietnams-promises-big-privatization-push-for-2019-but-reality-may-fall-short https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2018/12/30/vietna...)
- mieseratte 7y ago
  Do you want more USPS? That's how you get more USPS!
- telchar 7y ago
  The worst-affected victims are dead, what use do they have for money? And you're ignoring that nationalization can work well in the US: look at GM in the wake of the financial crisis.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    The money would go to their estates, the same as any wrongful death suit. Also, GM wasn’t nationalized. The government acted as a private lender, loaning a large amount of capital in return for 60% equity. At no point did the government start directing company operations for “public interest” ends, as the OP suggested. That’s a line that most countries are correctly loathe to cross. For example, even though the German government owns Deutsche Bahn, it doesn’t micromanage the operations of the company to achieve political ends.
- dctoedt 7y ago
  But in some cases the public can be well-served by having a public option available for "essential" products / services (however we choose to define that), alongside private sources. See, e.g.: + deliveries - you have your choice of the (public) Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, etc. + police protection - many companies use private security-guard services in addition to the (public) police. + schools - there's always the public-school option in addition to the myriad private schools available for those who can afford it. + local transportation -- private taxis and ride-sharing services operate alongside public bus service. It's not axiomatic that essential pharmaceuticals shouldn't have a public option too. EDIT: You can argue that the public options listed above are inefficient compared to their private counterparts. But max efficiency isn't necessarily the primary goal; some folks are faced with the choice between a comparatively-inefficient option and none at all. (Or: Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough.)
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. People ship UPS/Fedex unless the object is heavy and fits in a flat rate box. Private security is not known for doing ethically questionable things to maximize revenue and excessive force like public police are. The only time people want "real cops" is when the extra violence can work to your advantage (which is why many large events where alcohol is served tend to use police for security). People who can afford it often opt to send their kids to private school, particularly if local schools are not "good". People who can afford it generally take a taxi (uber/lyft in this day and age) instead of public transit. Heck, it's worth getting an AAA membership just so you don't have to go to the DMV for certain transactions. While it's essential to have a government provided backstop for all these services I wouldn't say the public is "well" served by any of them.
    - dctoedt 7y ago
      > In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. And for some people, the lesser option is Good Enough, because their alternative is — nothing, because they can't afford one of the better options.
  - 7y ago
- liability 7y ago
  > Do you want more Amtraks? That gave me a good belly laugh. In the metrics I care about, Amtrak could be seen to represent the government at their best. The trains run on time, are more comfortable than flying, and often cheaper too. The dining cars are surprisingly good (snack cars are lackluster though), and I've found every Amtrak employee I've ever dealt with to be a kind and courteous professional. And they look after their customers in other respects too, such as chasing away the notorious serial-gropists known as the TSA. Amtrak treats regular people like humanely in a way that contrasts sharply with how American airlines behave. From my perspective the primary problem with Amtrak is disappointing coverage of the country, so yes I want more Amtraks! (Incidentally, my experience with them is more limited, but I found the workers of the Alaska Marine Highway, a ferry service operated by the state of Alaska, to be similarly pleasant people. So maybe there is a trend here..)
  - rayiner 7y ago
    > The trains run on time Amtrak has abysmal reliability, even on the Northeast Corridor (which is Amtrak-owned and doesn't share traffic with freight lines). On-time performance on the northeast corridor is just 75% https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/10/the-sorry-state-of-amtraks-on-time-performance-mapped https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/10/the-s.... Many scheduled flights along that route (e.g. DCA to JFK or LGA) have 90% on-time performance. And of course, trains aren't supposed to have airline-like delays. One of the key selling points of trains is that they don't have to deal with airport congestion, late arriving equipment, etc., and so relatively short intercity trips are predictable and hassle-free. (Unlike Amtrak.) My wife and I rode Amtrak twice a day for two years between DC and Delaware. It was a nightmare. Routinely delayed trains, cancelled trains at least once a month, etc. No private business would survive operating like that. It's also odd that you'd cite TSA as a bad thing. TSA is, of course, what happened when the government nationalized airport security, taking it away from the private security forces airlines previously used.
    - liability 7y ago
      To be clear I don't blame airlines for the TSA, but I certainly credit Amtrak with keeping them at a distance. If you had opened with criticism of the TSA, not Amtrak, then I would have upvoted you. As for the rest, I'd rather be a little late than be treated like shit. The Amtrak delays I've encountered have all been less than an hour, compared to numerous incidents of multi-day delays when flying (I'll never do business with Delta again under any circumstances. Being stuck in Atlanta for two days is pretty bad, but the shear malicious joy their employees were expressing at the situation was as bad as any stereotypical DMV encounter.) A few hours of delay isn't such a problem, but some Americans seem to enjoy being in a perpetual state of hurry... I can't help but wonder if such impatience is somehow related to the general surliness of airline employees, relative to Amtrak and the Alaska ferry. The last ferry I was on got delayed for several hours one morning after responding to a mayday and being kept on the scene by Canadian Coast Guard during the search. The crew was unnecessarily apologetic while nearly all the passengers were, if anything, a bit proud or appreciative. I shudder to think of what such a delay on a plane would look like, with the sort of personalities that would likely be involved...
- maxerickson 7y ago
  It seems likely enough that the ownership isn't the only problem. For instance, if you consider something like the "normalization of deviance", the culture of the company and groups within the company have almost certainly contributed to the situation. Perhaps it would work well enough to give the victims shares in several poorly constructed successor companies. Poorly constructed because structuring them well is going to preserve culture.
- philjohn 7y ago
  Except look at the East Coast line in the UK. It was handed back TWICE because it "wasn't profitable enough to make the payments agreed to the government" ... and when taken back into government ownership it had widespread acclaim from the people travelling on it as it was run far better. The problem with privatisation, especially in the UK with the trains, is there are only so many tracks and so many routes ... you therefore can't have rival operators competing so they just charge what they want for unregulated fares, which is why it's cheaper to fly to Edinburgh from London than get the train. The largest irony is, most of the franchises that run train companies in the UK are ultimately state owned enterprises in their own countries (SNCF, DB etc.)
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Both SNCF and DB are in the midst of an ongoing process of privatization, pursuant to an EU-wide directive: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explainer/explainer-macrons-rail-reforms-and-french-union-strikes-idUKKBN1HF0TC https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explain.... It’s obviously a process to go from these big state owned enterprises to private companies without disrupting the apple cart. There are degrees of privatization: from the US model of an organization running a “public service” to the Singaporean model of a hands-off government that owns the equity as a passive investor. And the government may have an interest in supporting otherwise “money losing” operations. But there is broad consensus, not just in the developed world, but in the competitive Asian economies like Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore which are in many ways ahead of the curve, that the goal should be to privatize as much as possible, within the constraints of things like natural monopolies. Those calling for not just nationalization (the government being the shareholder) but active government involvement in operations are on the wrong side of that trend.
    - philjohn 7y ago
      And what do those competetive asian economis have? Effective regulation. We also have it in the UK so the large monopoly telecoms provider BT OpenReach have to provide network services to rival ISP's at regulated prices. In the current climate of fewer regulations in the US this just looks like a road to further exploitation of the populace.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
14 7y ago
I like part of this idea but what really needs to happen is CEOs need to spend the same time in jail. They knew their drug was a killer but it made too much money so they sold it anyways. If you or I knowingly sold poison we would be doing life in jail.
dominotw 7y ago
what would be the benefit of "ordering them" to manufacture generics. Wouldn't it cost more to the taxpayers to manufacture them here. Or do you mean till the company goes bankrupt?
briffle 7y ago
Another option would be to revoke the companies charter in the state they are registered in. Basically, a corporate death penalty.
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> what about nationalizing them for the public good for a certain number of years that matches what a person would get in prison for a similar crime? Forcing their IP into the public domain followed by a liquidation of their hard assets would be simpler, and not put the U.S. government in the narcotics business.
- philjohn 7y ago
  Oxy is already out of patent ... but they got the FDA to agree that it's too dangerous for any other firm to make and market it, so they got to continue.
dirtybird04 7y ago
It's a great idea. It's unfortunate that it would get shot down almost immediately under the guise of "socialism", just like the the idea to nationalize the banks after the financial crisis of 2008.
davidgay 7y ago
From the article: "The bulk of the funds would come from restructuring the company under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that would transform it from a private company into a “public beneficiary trust.” That would allow the profits from all drug sales, including the opioid painkiller OxyContin, to go to the plaintiffs — largely states, cities, towns and tribes." That sounds like nationalization under another name to me...

rayiner 7y ago

How does it serve the public interest to have government management run a company into the ground? Do you want more Amtraks? That’s how you get more Amtraks. If you want a nuclear bomb for corporate misconduct, it seems like the best approach would be to distribute the shares to the victims while keeping the company privately owned and operated. (Downvoters are on the wrong side of history. Nationalizing companies is a failed experiment. Privatization of state-owned companies is one of the few things nearly everyone agree on, from the US to Sweden to putatively Marxist countries like Vietnam: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2018/12/30/vietnams-promises-big-privatization-push-for-2019-but-reality-may-fall-short https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2018/12/30/vietna...)

mieseratte 7y ago
Do you want more USPS? That's how you get more USPS!
telchar 7y ago
The worst-affected victims are dead, what use do they have for money? And you're ignoring that nationalization can work well in the US: look at GM in the wake of the financial crisis.
- rayiner 7y ago
  The money would go to their estates, the same as any wrongful death suit. Also, GM wasn’t nationalized. The government acted as a private lender, loaning a large amount of capital in return for 60% equity. At no point did the government start directing company operations for “public interest” ends, as the OP suggested. That’s a line that most countries are correctly loathe to cross. For example, even though the German government owns Deutsche Bahn, it doesn’t micromanage the operations of the company to achieve political ends.
dctoedt 7y ago
But in some cases the public can be well-served by having a public option available for "essential" products / services (however we choose to define that), alongside private sources. See, e.g.: + deliveries - you have your choice of the (public) Postal Service, FedEx, UPS, etc. + police protection - many companies use private security-guard services in addition to the (public) police. + schools - there's always the public-school option in addition to the myriad private schools available for those who can afford it. + local transportation -- private taxis and ride-sharing services operate alongside public bus service. It's not axiomatic that essential pharmaceuticals shouldn't have a public option too. EDIT: You can argue that the public options listed above are inefficient compared to their private counterparts. But max efficiency isn't necessarily the primary goal; some folks are faced with the choice between a comparatively-inefficient option and none at all. (Or: Perfect is the enemy of Good Enough.)
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. People ship UPS/Fedex unless the object is heavy and fits in a flat rate box. Private security is not known for doing ethically questionable things to maximize revenue and excessive force like public police are. The only time people want "real cops" is when the extra violence can work to your advantage (which is why many large events where alcohol is served tend to use police for security). People who can afford it often opt to send their kids to private school, particularly if local schools are not "good". People who can afford it generally take a taxi (uber/lyft in this day and age) instead of public transit. Heck, it's worth getting an AAA membership just so you don't have to go to the DMV for certain transactions. While it's essential to have a government provided backstop for all these services I wouldn't say the public is "well" served by any of them.
  - dctoedt 7y ago
    > In every example the public option is considered the lesser one. And for some people, the lesser option is Good Enough, because their alternative is — nothing, because they can't afford one of the better options.
- 7y ago
liability 7y ago
> Do you want more Amtraks? That gave me a good belly laugh. In the metrics I care about, Amtrak could be seen to represent the government at their best. The trains run on time, are more comfortable than flying, and often cheaper too. The dining cars are surprisingly good (snack cars are lackluster though), and I've found every Amtrak employee I've ever dealt with to be a kind and courteous professional. And they look after their customers in other respects too, such as chasing away the notorious serial-gropists known as the TSA. Amtrak treats regular people like humanely in a way that contrasts sharply with how American airlines behave. From my perspective the primary problem with Amtrak is disappointing coverage of the country, so yes I want more Amtraks! (Incidentally, my experience with them is more limited, but I found the workers of the Alaska Marine Highway, a ferry service operated by the state of Alaska, to be similarly pleasant people. So maybe there is a trend here..)
- rayiner 7y ago
  > The trains run on time Amtrak has abysmal reliability, even on the Northeast Corridor (which is Amtrak-owned and doesn't share traffic with freight lines). On-time performance on the northeast corridor is just 75% https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/10/the-sorry-state-of-amtraks-on-time-performance-mapped https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/10/the-s.... Many scheduled flights along that route (e.g. DCA to JFK or LGA) have 90% on-time performance. And of course, trains aren't supposed to have airline-like delays. One of the key selling points of trains is that they don't have to deal with airport congestion, late arriving equipment, etc., and so relatively short intercity trips are predictable and hassle-free. (Unlike Amtrak.) My wife and I rode Amtrak twice a day for two years between DC and Delaware. It was a nightmare. Routinely delayed trains, cancelled trains at least once a month, etc. No private business would survive operating like that. It's also odd that you'd cite TSA as a bad thing. TSA is, of course, what happened when the government nationalized airport security, taking it away from the private security forces airlines previously used.
  - liability 7y ago
    To be clear I don't blame airlines for the TSA, but I certainly credit Amtrak with keeping them at a distance. If you had opened with criticism of the TSA, not Amtrak, then I would have upvoted you. As for the rest, I'd rather be a little late than be treated like shit. The Amtrak delays I've encountered have all been less than an hour, compared to numerous incidents of multi-day delays when flying (I'll never do business with Delta again under any circumstances. Being stuck in Atlanta for two days is pretty bad, but the shear malicious joy their employees were expressing at the situation was as bad as any stereotypical DMV encounter.) A few hours of delay isn't such a problem, but some Americans seem to enjoy being in a perpetual state of hurry... I can't help but wonder if such impatience is somehow related to the general surliness of airline employees, relative to Amtrak and the Alaska ferry. The last ferry I was on got delayed for several hours one morning after responding to a mayday and being kept on the scene by Canadian Coast Guard during the search. The crew was unnecessarily apologetic while nearly all the passengers were, if anything, a bit proud or appreciative. I shudder to think of what such a delay on a plane would look like, with the sort of personalities that would likely be involved...
maxerickson 7y ago
It seems likely enough that the ownership isn't the only problem. For instance, if you consider something like the "normalization of deviance", the culture of the company and groups within the company have almost certainly contributed to the situation. Perhaps it would work well enough to give the victims shares in several poorly constructed successor companies. Poorly constructed because structuring them well is going to preserve culture.
philjohn 7y ago
Except look at the East Coast line in the UK. It was handed back TWICE because it "wasn't profitable enough to make the payments agreed to the government" ... and when taken back into government ownership it had widespread acclaim from the people travelling on it as it was run far better. The problem with privatisation, especially in the UK with the trains, is there are only so many tracks and so many routes ... you therefore can't have rival operators competing so they just charge what they want for unregulated fares, which is why it's cheaper to fly to Edinburgh from London than get the train. The largest irony is, most of the franchises that run train companies in the UK are ultimately state owned enterprises in their own countries (SNCF, DB etc.)
- rayiner 7y ago
  Both SNCF and DB are in the midst of an ongoing process of privatization, pursuant to an EU-wide directive: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explainer/explainer-macrons-rail-reforms-and-french-union-strikes-idUKKBN1HF0TC https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-france-reform-sncf-explain.... It’s obviously a process to go from these big state owned enterprises to private companies without disrupting the apple cart. There are degrees of privatization: from the US model of an organization running a “public service” to the Singaporean model of a hands-off government that owns the equity as a passive investor. And the government may have an interest in supporting otherwise “money losing” operations. But there is broad consensus, not just in the developed world, but in the competitive Asian economies like Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore which are in many ways ahead of the curve, that the goal should be to privatize as much as possible, within the constraints of things like natural monopolies. Those calling for not just nationalization (the government being the shareholder) but active government involvement in operations are on the wrong side of that trend.
  - philjohn 7y ago
    And what do those competetive asian economis have? Effective regulation. We also have it in the UK so the large monopoly telecoms provider BT OpenReach have to provide network services to rival ISP's at regulated prices. In the current climate of fewer regulations in the US this just looks like a road to further exploitation of the populace.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

14 7y ago

I like part of this idea but what really needs to happen is CEOs need to spend the same time in jail. They knew their drug was a killer but it made too much money so they sold it anyways. If you or I knowingly sold poison we would be doing life in jail.

dominotw 7y ago

what would be the benefit of "ordering them" to manufacture generics. Wouldn't it cost more to the taxpayers to manufacture them here. Or do you mean till the company goes bankrupt?

briffle 7y ago

Another option would be to revoke the companies charter in the state they are registered in. Basically, a corporate death penalty.

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> what about nationalizing them for the public good for a certain number of years that matches what a person would get in prison for a similar crime? Forcing their IP into the public domain followed by a liquidation of their hard assets would be simpler, and not put the U.S. government in the narcotics business.

philjohn 7y ago
Oxy is already out of patent ... but they got the FDA to agree that it's too dangerous for any other firm to make and market it, so they got to continue.

dirtybird04 7y ago

It's a great idea. It's unfortunate that it would get shot down almost immediately under the guise of "socialism", just like the the idea to nationalize the banks after the financial crisis of 2008.

davidgay 7y ago

From the article: "The bulk of the funds would come from restructuring the company under a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing that would transform it from a private company into a “public beneficiary trust.” That would allow the profits from all drug sales, including the opioid painkiller OxyContin, to go to the plaintiffs — largely states, cities, towns and tribes." That sounds like nationalization under another name to me...