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.
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.”
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