3 ms·
This is why we need a corporate death penalty, to destroy abusive companies like this. The company and all its investors and directors should have all their as
by strong_opinions 6y ago
This is why we need a corporate death penalty, to destroy abusive companies like this.
The company and all its investors and directors should have all their assets seized, even those not related to the company. In addition to any relevant criminal charges being applied.
If we had a few instances of this occurring for the worst offenders, you can be sure other companies would swiftly clean up their acts.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> company and all its investors and directors should have all their assets seized This is expropriation. Its track record is poor. It results in government cronies applying the “death penalty” to people it doesn’t like to take their stuff. To the degree it exists in America (for individuals), it’s called civil forfeiture and is roundly criticised. If you don’t give the assets to the government after seizure, and instead auction them off, the original investors would repurchase them. This redistributes assets from shareholders who do not have access to the auction to those who do. Again, cronyism. Corporate “death penalties” are either stupid or an invitation for corruption. Punishing individual actors, individual decision makers, is less risky and more effective.
- dencodev 6y agoCivil forfeiture has a bad track record because it's used on poor and lower class people 99.999% of the time. I imagine if it was only used on rich people it'd have a stellar reputation.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> if it was only used on rich people it'd have a stellar reputation We've tried this, a lot, in Latin America. It doesn't work. Throwing out the rule of law because you don't like a group of people is a short-term strategy.
- dencodev 6y agoSeems to be a long term strategy against poor people in America