Clueless-?

The NYTs seems to be posed on the brink of a new crusade. They have "uncovered" the fact that the Department of Justice, has - in a time of economic uncertainly and possible contraction - decided to forgo proceedings that might prove as ruinous to companies now coping with the difficulties of the current economic circumstances as were the legal actions that closed the accounting firm of Arthur Anderson in 2002 - leaving 28, 000 of its employees without work as a consequence. Apparently - to the staff of the Times - another "fix" is called for. Perhaps a really "good" one might top that previous job-loss figure, and, in doing so, provide material for a month's worth of articles exposing the plight of the "new jobless" stranded on the "heartless shoals of late American Capitalism."

There is not a particle small enough from which to craft a violin that would be appropriate for the loss of Arthur Anderson jobs.

They were corrupt.

They deserved to go down.

Also, there is no inappropriate time for bringing legal actions against criminals.

If Citibank or Bear-Stearns or Countrywide or anyone else did something illegal then they need to be brought into the courts, regardless of the predicted effects on the economy.

In the long run rooting corruption out of the economic system will only work to all our benefit.

MNJohnnie,

Thanks for your reply!
Though it is heartening that they are losing readership, there also seems to be an odd disconnect at work here as well. That is, they seem to still - somehow - manage to have an disproportionate influence on public opinion. This seems evident in matters ranging from the distortion of President Bush’s record as reflected in his abysmal popularity numbers, to the publics continued pessimism about our prospects for success in Iraq.
This is a puzzle which I wish someone would unravel - and do so well before the coming election.

Best and G-d Bless!
DIM1

who_would_fardels_bear,

Quote:
“There is not a particle small enough from which to craft a violin that would be appropriate for the loss of Arthur Anderson jobs.

They were corrupt.

They deserved to go down.”

Janitors? Typists? Mail-room clerks? Programmer-trainees? Payroll clerks? etc?
And - even in regards to the accountants and systems-analysts - do you actually believe that they were guilty each, all, and everyone?

As stated in the article:

“And, that it is those kinds of people [regular employees and ordinary investors] - not greedy Plutocrats cackling over piles of ill-gotten lucre - who stand to lose out most substantially when a company goes down”

Do you disagree with that last point, or do you believe that it is just fine for innocent people and the economy as a whole, to be trashed along with those who actually did the deeds?

Quote:
“Also, there is no inappropriate time for bringing legal actions against criminals.”

Agreed. The key word being “criminals.”
As stated in the article:

“individuals - large or small - who knowing or through criminal neglect, cause circumstances that endanger employees, contractors, end-users or consumers, or who cause financial lose due to intentional fraud or theft, should certainly face criminal charges and prosecution.”

When the company - as a whole - is prosecuted it is not JUST the criminals who are punished when/is guilt is determined.

The same response applies to your point as to the long-term economic benefits of “rooting out corruption.” I agree in principle, but if that is done without attention to just whom it is that is paying the price - doing so will have an effect on the economy similar to that which the tecnique of burning down one’s house to rid it of termites, has on one’s living conditions.
Or as expressed in the article:”

“...Given those facts - criminal prosecution of Corporations - qua corporations - as a means of helping the “little guy” - are as sensible as farmers eating their seed corn for a snack, or burning a season’s harvest in order to kill a normal infestation of some common pest. And, those points are particularly germane in times such as these.”

All the best and G-d Bless!
DiM1

who_would_fardels_bear,

Quote:
“There is not a particle small enough from which to craft a violin that would be appropriate for the loss of Arthur Anderson jobs.

They were corrupt.

They deserved to go down.”

As stated in the article:

Do you disagree with that last point, or do you believe that it is just fine for innocent people and the economy as a whole, to be trashed along with those who actually did the deeds?

Quote:
“Also, there is no inappropriate time for bringing legal actions against criminals.”

Agreed. The key word being “criminals.”
As stated in the article:

When the company - as a whole - is prosecuted it is not JUST the criminals who are punished when/is guilt is determined.

All the best and G-d Bless!
DiM1

I have always worked as a "wage slave" for corporations. I have never worked for myself.

As a "wage slave" I get certain benefits that the self-employed do not such as generally better and cheaper health plans, access to more capital equipment such as better and faster PC's, better office equipment, better working conditions.

When I worked for small companies I noticed that the computers were old and slow. The offices were usually cramped, and the health benefit choices, 401K choices, etc. were all worse than what I enjoy now.

A couple of the companies I worked for ultimately went out of business through no major fault of my own. I may have contributed a bit by not working that extra hour a night, etc. but usually it was business conditions and poor management decisions that doomed us.

In those cases many innocent people lost their jobs and their lives were thrown into a tizzy. Some were able to find work relatively quickly in the same city while others had to move, or had to move in with their parents, etc.

Not fun. But then again while they were working for the corporation they were doing much better than the average worker.

However corporations fail, whether by market conditions, poor management decisions, criminal behavior, etc. it is always going to redound to everyone that works there. That's just part of the tradeoff.

It would be best if the guilty individuals could be identified and punished singly. Corporate laws and legal precedents, however, make it difficult to completely separate the guilty from all of their innocent coworkers.

This is especially true if the guilty ones run the corporation and start using the corporation and its assets to put up a defense. The harder they work to prove their own innocence, the more complicit they make the rest of the company when they finally go down.

Greetings!
If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying that —
there are choices that are a normal part of working for a living - choices such as working for one’s self or for others, and choices as to the size or structure of the organization one works for - small business, large corporation, etc. And, that there are also benefits and risks involved in any of these choices. One such risk being that - the company one works for might fail, that it might do so for many reasons, and that, included amongst such causes for failure are situations where a company is taken down by LE agencies for crimes committed by those who manage it and in which the operations of said business are involved.
And that, finally, it is rough for everyone when that kind of thing happens but., essentially, they are just a normal part of life as lived by people who make their choices and are adult enough to own up to them.
Do I got it?

If i do, then, my reply would be that - even in regards to the kinds of risks usually taken as being inherent/internal to the market, there is normally some effort made to do justice to those who are not responsible for failure and to cushion the effects that events of that kind might have on them. For example, when a company goes bankrupt, some effort might normally be made to encourage the development of a plan for restructuring the business - or even to find a buyer willing to sustain its operations, so that creditors, investors and employees might have some chance of retaining an income or some proportion of their assets. And, if worse comes to worse, these same persons would the primary recipients of whatever assets are obtained through liquidation of the company.

On the other hand, criminality is exactly what the authorities are supposed to protect the market - and those who participate in its workings - from. In a free republic the very reason for the existence of LE agencies and judicial bodies is to attempt - as best as they can - to protect the innocent from the misdeeds of others and to insure that justice is actually done.
Therefore, however difficult it may be to -
“...completely separate the guilty from all of their innocent coworkers.” as you put it. it is the job of such agencies to try their very best to do so. And, as protection and justice is supposed to emanate from their operations - it is simply intolerable that they do any harm in the execution of their duties that they cannot reasonable be expected to avoid (truly accidental/good-faith shootings being amongst the kinds of things which at times CANNOT be avoided).

So, criminality is not just another risk of the market and the agencies who are supposed to protect us from it cannot be allowed treat it as such, but, they must do their best to ensure that justice is done and that the very least harm is inflicted on those not deserving of it.

Best and G-d Bless!
DIM1

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.