Question

Briefly outline two of the criticisms the Economist articles offer of what the Economist calls the "Criminalisation of American Business."  Do you agree with the Economist's criticisms? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The two criticisms that the writer aims to cover are

i) The governance and the regulatory bodies acts as agents to extort money from corporates by pointing out some fallacy or other , The corporates with deep pockets in the interest to safeguard business and to avoid the ill effects of legal system that could have an impact on the publicity that could indeed cause trouble to them which could potentially hamper the business as a whole are ready to address the issues by paying hefty fines from the shareholders pocket to avoid any ill effects and the writer also says that they could as well do away with fines even when they are not wrong.
ii) The America as we know has evolved a lot in the last few decades whereas the updates done in the federal legal system has made it more complex in the process whereas it should be pruned to address issues in simplistic manner. The opacity and secrecy on the civil action law cases is not leaving lot of information to the public and hence cause some transactions that are not detailed or explained. Hence there requires a clear and concise means of approaching it legally that provides rights to the one who is faulted and also provides a transperent manner in which the issue is to be dealt with.

Do you agree with Economist's criticism:
The economist has pointed out that the agencies act as extorting agents in shelling out corporate shareholders fund whose money fills the coffers of the state. It has to be agreed that the cases are to be made more transperant to ensure the exact legal reasons for which the actions are resulted in shall be identified and shall also be known by the public , The root cause of the issue shall be found and shall be clearly addressed since these type of hefty fines when being used by the organisation to clear up some legal issues. The shareholders reserve the right to know the account in which wrongdoing is charged for.

Also , It would indeed be a need of the time to ensure simpler and more direct approach is required to address troubles rather than opaque and complex mechanisms that could lengthen the legal process thereby causing more trouble to the shareholders which would hamper the goodwill of the organisation. As the writer points out , There needs to be reforms and clarity that shall be happening with the regulators. Also , The fines shall not be the ones that not only fills the coffers but shall also be remedy for the wrongdoing by directing those towards the ones that are affected rather than the state being a benefactor.