...everyone on Wall Street and even the WH tries to claim they do, namely that they ''strengthen the market by culling out the weak'' -- then the obligation and commitments that these ''weak firms'' have made to their workers should have precedence over anything else, IMHO, upon liquidation. Not the custodians.
Morally, it's inescapable to conclude otherwise. ''The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.'' Economically, one must conclude once again that the focus of the greater negative impact is clear, rather than any supposed benefit the market will gain from the elimination of assets into the pockets of Wall Street Pimps Inc.™
All we end up doing under the current laws and policies, is socializing the cost of doing bad business. We seem to be giving an incentive for management to play fast and loose with the company's assets because they'll bear no personal burden, only the workers do and the society at-large when the final tabs come in.
In a so-called ''civilized society,'' (again IMHO) there should be a price of admission into the marketplace. At minimum one must be required to follow the existing rules. But then, those rules are enforced by those we elect. Or, not. That is the question.
- So like I said mostly, but not completely.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read