by evilgenius » Thu 20 May 2010, 10:04:28
Banning them was something I thought of in the first few days after the accident. I was only being reactionary, not proactive. What really needs to be done is to restructure corporations themselves such that there are better 'checks' in place to prevent self-indulgent executives from running them in a way that is not conducive with the concept of a going concern. Generally accepted accounting principles demand that companies be run with the concept of them as going concerns in mind. When safety measures are flaunted as a matter of course, read BP in Prudhoe Bay, Texas City, and now here, and nothing is done about it until something comes of it, then the concept is being violated. A long time ago the executives at BP should have been done by the auditors. When the safety investment was not done the executive's actions should have been flagged and their decisions overruled. If they tried to hide their decisions from the auditors they should have gotten prison sentences. I think this is important because it is here where for perhaps the first time we can talk about prison sentences for executives and have it stick whereas almost always a fine given out to the corporation at large is what occurs.
When it comes down to it, the people will always shout, "Free Barabbas." They love Barabbas. He's one of them. He has the same dreams. He does what they wish they could do. That other guy is more removed, more inscrutable. He makes them think. "Crucify him."