I don't think I see the comparison between what I've suggested (though I didn't really give enough detail to infer any real implementation plan for my suggestion, so I can see how there might be room for interpreting my comment in a lot of ways), and what Venezuela did when they socialized some companies and kicked some others out (though I am, by no means, an expert on the Venezuelan economy...perhaps you have a specific corporation in mind that committed some sort of atrocity in Venezuela and was shut down or forced to leave?).
I think I need you to be more specific, is what I'm trying to say.
Yes, I'm aware of the socialization of companies in Venezuala. I just don't understand what that has to do with what I'm suggesting. Were those companies that were socialized killing people, and was that the reason they were socialized? (And, to be clear: I'm not suggesting government ownership of companies.)
No, they weren't killing anyone. They were confiscated, which is what a "corporate death penalty" is. The result was the economy was utterly destroyed.
What do you intend by "corporate death penalty" if not being siezed?
First off, confiscating a company to keep it running at full profit is different from confiscating a company to put it through a shredder and sell off tiny remnants.
More importantly, think about the difference between a serial killer and a single person being executed. Venezuela is the former, while SwellJoe advocates the latter. Your comparison makes about as much sense as "we can't jail anyone, because if we jailed everyone there would be no workers left".
I still don't understand how you're comparing socializing a company to a bankruptcy liquidation of a company. Am I misunderstanding some dimension of this that you're intending?
In one case the government ends up owning and running the company, in the other, the assets are sold off to the highest bidder with the creditors (and in the case of a criminal company like VW, restitution for their victims, which in this case would be VW owners and public health systems, among others) receiving the proceeds.
How is that functionally the same?
And, regardless of that: The single most important element of my suggestion is that VW committed a crime (well, a number of crimes, spread over many years) and caused harm to human lives and health. Unless the Venezualan companies you're talking about were criminal companies causing harm to humans, it is unrelated to this conversation. No one (certainly not me) has suggested a bunch of random major companies should be owned by the government.
"Note you suggested more than just VW, the entire industry."
I see you're not alone in thinking my joking "line them all up against the wall" comment was intended to be taken seriously. Someone said, "everybody's doing it", and I meant to imply, "well, everyone who is doing it should be investigated and punished". I did not mean "everyone who ever sold a car should be put out of business".
I can't blame you for making that assumption, since others have made it, too. So, apologies for not being clear. I have no desire to see every car manufacturer closed down. Only the ones that have committed crimes on a level similar to Volkswagen (or worse, if there are any who've done worse things). In fact, I would like for the honest ones, the ones that are sincerely working on cleaner technology and accurately representing it in the market, to be able to compete in a market free from cheaters like Volkswagen.
If some automakers are cheating, and some are playing fair, the ones playing fair are effectively fighting with one hand tied behind their backs. They're virtually guaranteed to lose market share to the cheaters over time. That's the kind of screwed up market that no honest person wants to compete in.
