Comparative Reality

Apparently, taking a loss by destroying tainted products and not poisoning people would be better for the long-term success of a company.

Although, to be fair, after the criminally incompetent regulation we've seen over the last eight years (when we saw any at all), it probably seemed like a pretty safe bet.

"It's regrettable, but it's inevitable with the events of last month," said Andrew S. Goldstein, a bankruptcy lawyer in Roanoke, Va., who filed the petition.

No, it's not at all regrettable, and yes, it damn well should be inevitable.

"We kicked the tires on trying to reorganize, but the fact of the matter is they've absolutely closed down," Goldstein said. "They're prevented from carrying on business. There didn't seem like there would be any prospects."

YES. I'm pretty sure that's the entire point: When you sell peanut butter that kills people, you shouldn't be too surprised when people refuse to trust your product. When you knowingly sell peanut butter that kills people, you shouldn't be too surprised to see an angry mob erecting a scaffold outside your window.

"They're prevented from carrying on business." No, to hell with that: Peanut Corp. isn't the victim, not in any conceivable way. Maybe some employees, sure, but when the CEO said, "Screw it, toss those contaminated nuts into the batch," he made a deliberate decision, and that decision killed the company.

Is that decision, between "post a loss for this quarter" and "sell a product that could possibly kill people," really that difficult? Like my fellow blogger on this site, I ask, rhetorically: How many lives is a corporation worth?