The way the laws are set up now, the whistleblowers in this case are going to make a nice chunk of change off this settlement (along with the lawyers), which is going to encourage more whistleblowing. Sounds good to me.

Finding out the problems exist is half the battle.

For any corporation that’s no damn good there are hundreds that are. You don’t read about them at MSNBC.

This isn’t about our economic system, and anyone who implies it is, like Bowser did, had better be able to back that up. Not least with some evidence that nations with less free enterprise have fewer of these problems.

Anybody aware that this company was British?

“What I would do” should be obvious, send anyone who deliberately and repeatedly breaks the law to prison. Period. And if you just don’t want to go here, then I blame you: any society where corporate crimes are not investigated, prosecuted and punished with the same severity as anyone elses is not a free society. It is a plutocracy.

This thread isn’t about the philosophy of regulation, the blind alley you seem determined to divert the conversation toward. Its about public and worker health and safety, fraud, environmental pollution and financial crimes that would send you or me to the slammer in a heartbeat. We don’t hate these people because they are capitalists, we hate them because they are no damned good. Guess what, it IS possible to be in both those categories simultaneously.

“That they are prosecuted at all says something about a society.”

Well, gee, that’s mighty white of you, pal. What are we supposed to do, tug our forelocks
and knuckle our foreheads in gratitude and appreciation?

As long as you feel the need to appoint yourself the Zone’s hall monitor for right wing political correctness, you’re going to have to learn to accept the occasional spitball and well-placed Bronx cheer. Get used to it.

Anybody, including most primates, can stand around and throw shit at things. It takes a bit more to fix the problems, or even suggest solutions.

My first comment pointed out that these industries are already heavily regulated, that there are many laws in place to deal with this stuff, and that this industry was successfully prosecuted.

What if there isn’t any “better” way to do things?

The rich and powerful aren’t subjected to the same kind of legal jeopardy as the rest of us? Congratulations. You’ve discovered something that has been true of every damn society in all of human history–all ideologies, all forms of government.

That they are prosecuted at all says something about a society.

“What would you do?” is a legitimate question.

Anyone can stand around and say “correct that flaw,” just like I can stand next to a badly-running car and say “this needs fixing.”

You just don’t want to go there. To follow the lines of reasoning to the end. I don’t blame you.

Tom, do you really expect anyone with any intellectual self-respect could take anyone who says something like that seriously?

Did it ever occur to you that maybe you are implying any condemnation of business crime as an attack on business itself, so you felt compelled to defend the crime in order to protect your ideology? That you are so ideologically driven you can’t even see what is obvious to everyone else? That is exactly what you are accusing Bowser of doing, and it is exactly what I interpret you are doing. None of us made the attrack you are so self-righteously defending against: that the solution to this problem is socialism, or even extreme and punitive regulation.

And when you cannot answer effectively either Bowser, Rob or myself, you turn it around with a question right back at us, TBs usual Parthian Shot, “so what would you do?”, a smokescreen to obscure that you really have nothing to say, except to just accuse us of congenital left-handedness, to disguise the fact that you have no answer for our comments. Are we supposed to collapse into stuttering incoherence when presented with such devastating wit on your part?

It is not a criticism of capitalism to point out that corporate crime is not investigated, prosecuted, or punished as severely as the same crime when done for personal gain by an individual.

Corporations may be people, and they may have first amendment rights, but they still get away with murder. Occasionally they get caught, and they get their wrist slapped with a token fine. Very rarely does anyone go to jail.

Correcting that flaw is not destructive to capitalism. It may be the only thing that will save it.

Saturation would produce results otherwise.

I was discussing Bowser using the illegal act of a business to condemn an entire economic system. Note the thread title.

You are welcome to point out anything I’ve ever actually said about opposing the prosecution or punishing of businessmen who commit crimes.

If there’s that much saturation, it shouldn’t be hard to find.

You are unable to make the distinction between punishing criminals and inconveniencing businessmen. I believe my ideas are pretty accurate.

Law breakers? Throw the bastards in jail.

Retention issues?

It might do the lot of them some good if they had to share a cell for a while with Tyrone.

Even more regulations? Still more laws?

Or maybe just nationalize the drug industries so the regulators and the CEOs are the same entities. That’ll work.