Fun fact: I bought my first Aeron chair from the Arthur Andersen bankruptcy auction. I would have bought a shredder, too, but my dad recommended against it, saying, "Those shredders are worn out, son."
So, my question is: Would we be better off with Enron still existing, including the same executive team (VW executive team is still largely unchanged)? Would we be better off with a more aggressive response to the banking crisis a few years ago?
I believe ending criminal companies probably makes room for better companies, and in the long run makes our economy and our society healthier. I may be wrong; there are certainly negative impacts. But, I feel like the cost of looking the other way, or a slap on the wrist, is too high.
So, my question is: Would we be better off with Enron still existing
There are thousands -- millions? -- of innocent people who
would definitely have been better off had Enron survived. You could be right about the long term, but you're playing pretty fast and loose with other people's money.
"you're playing pretty fast and loose with other people's money"
I'd say Enron was playing fast and loose with other people's money; likewise VW was, too. Why blame me for the malfeasance of the executives at these companies, just because I think they shouldn't be allowed to do it again? The rolling blackouts Enron caused likely led to deaths (hospitals need power to keep machines and people running, refrigerators need power to prevent food-borne illnesses, etc.). It should be a really big deal when a company makes an intentional decision to harm people.
So where are the criminal prosecutions? My argument is that very large corporations wield so much power, and have disbursed responsibility so widely, that no one faces any significant consequences for making these decisions. I think maybe what I haven't really made clear is that I think we (we, as in, governments, nations, communities) don't seem to be equipped with legal tools needed to prosecute people within corporations, because responsibility for actions becomes this wisp of an idea that sort of floats around inside a company but never really sticks to anyone. And, when it does stick to someone, it sticks to low-level workers; trickle-down economics for blame.
My suggestion was barely thought out; an expression of frustration that companies like BP, and Shell, and VW will keep ticking after committing horrible crimes. And, more importantly perhaps, the C-levels at those companies still have jobs in those companies, in most cases. Blame trickled down, profits trickled up. The incentives remain for companies to skirt the law and put communities at risk.
Maybe there's some other way to hold executives accountable. I don't think this settlement has done that.
I regard it as a good thing that BP, and Shell, and VW (and so on) keep ticking along! People made bad decisions and should be punished. Companies cannot make decisions. Only people can.
There's no point in burning down the village because the mayor's corrupt. The town still has value!
So, my question is: Would we be better off with Enron still existing, including the same executive team (VW executive team is still largely unchanged)? Would we be better off with a more aggressive response to the banking crisis a few years ago?
I believe ending criminal companies probably makes room for better companies, and in the long run makes our economy and our society healthier. I may be wrong; there are certainly negative impacts. But, I feel like the cost of looking the other way, or a slap on the wrist, is too high.