Well, I composed a long-winded reply the other day, but my browser crashed so I blew it off. In short, I agree that killing the company is not a desirable option. True enough, it's not "the company" making the decision to operate illegally, but rather the people who are steering it. However, I don't believe the government should be in the business of removing those people from the helm; that's the job of the BOD. But, if the BOD won't act and control their executives, where does that leave us?
Having said that, I can think of two significant cases that had favorable free-enterprise implications after onerous government intervention. IBM operated under the thumb of the courts for many years as a result of a consent decree intended to end their monopolistic practices. They changed their business practices and have since thrived while at the same time allowing others to innovate and thrive, including the likes of Microsoft. Ma Bell's remedy was more drastic, splitting it up in to the BBs. The resulting competition created massive innovation, advancement in datacom and telecom technology, and certainly created a lot of additional wealth for the shareholders.
As I've said, I'm not necessarily an advocate of breaking up the company, but if it happens there is every reason to believe that the sum of the parts will be greater than the whole. |
