Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Charlatan
You are right. People do evil.
The thing is... what responsibility to the investors have as owners? The answer... none.
Sure the management can go down. But the money stays clean.
When a small business goes down due to bad practice... the owner is fried as well.
This is this difference.
|
I really don't follow you on this.
If I invest $500 in Enron stock, and the company goes down, so does my money. I am assuming that by your logic the stock holders should be just as guilty as the CEO? In that case Enron woulda been a hoot, because the people that lost their life savings in stock could then be held libel like the men who destroyed the company!
'Honey remember that enron stock I bought?'
'Yes dear.'
'Well the company went belly up due to deceptive accounting.'
'Oh dear!'
'Yes we lost it all....oh and we are going to jail'
The owner of a small store IS the CEO, so yes if the store goes down for something illegal the owner goes down too. He did the evil deed.
I assume your implication is that it is the shareholders which somehow force a company to do something 'evil' and then they take none of the burden? They do take the financial burden, if the company loses good people, or breaks the law the stock price will suffer and they will be out their investment. Its insane to hold anyone more accountable than that if they are not directly involved in running the company. Its not like they put an 'evil' plan up for a vote. Enron or Global Crossings share holders didn't get the 'evil' option or a good option.
IF there was some sort of legal burden on shareholders all it would do is remove ALL investment opportunity from the general public because no one would be able to take such a risk.
Basically you would destroy Western Civilization as we know it, and ensure that only the very wealthy get to profit from continued prosperity.