[pfisch]

I agree with you, though I would say what is happening here is more like strip mining vs cutting dead wood.

I don't know that it should be legal to buy a company and then pay for it by loading up the company with debt obligations. It seems like a form of value destruction in order to enrich a bunch of vultures.

Fundamentally it is basically saying maybe we could buy this company and then plunder it with some % chance that it will still stay afloat and keep generating profit after they gut the company to try to service a debt that should not be attached to the company at all and provided no value to anyone but the vultures.

[Ferret7446]

I don't see how you can outlaw it without being authoritarian. If they buy it they can do whatever they want. They can liquidate the entire company.

[pfisch]

I'm not sure, but this seems like a form of anti-social behavior that destroys value for everyone except the people plundering the company. It is almost like piracy and we should honestly try to figure out a way to not allow large companies to be destroyed in this manner.

We just shouldn't let people buy profitable companies because they think they can make a return by destroying the business and then bleeding out a small profit once the company had been gutted. It isn't good for the economy, the employees, or really anyone except the plunderers.

[terminalshort]

Once you buy the company you are free to borrow money because it's your company. Why wouldn't you be allowed to do that?

[pfisch]

Well that isn't what they are quite doing though. They are using the money they force the company to borrow to pay for the purchase.

[terminalshort]

They don't "force" the company to do anything (at least not any more so than any other CEO / owner). They are the company.

[cptroot]

The same reason payday loans are illegal in 9 states. Companies who follow this pattern of behavior are more likely to go into bankruptcy.

[terminalshort]

Then, fuck em, let them go bankrupt. Companies have no right to continued existence.

[Arainach]

Companies that go out of business hurt more than the owners - they hurt the employees, the community, the state (which has to care for the employees let go), etc.

[terminalshort]

That is unfortunate, but it is good for society to have rapid turnover of unprofitable businesses. The employees will be fine and get new jobs. When one company goes under, they will go to another. You don't work for a company, you work for an industry, and unless the layoff is due to industry wide issues, you will be fine.

[Arainach]

It's bad for society to have rapid turnover full stop. It's disruptive and stressful to the humans involved and can be disastrous for the environment (if a bankrupt company just leaves a bunch of waste behind or already did and can't be sued to cover the cleanup), disastrous for the rest of the economy, local or larger (both their customers and their suppliers are affected), and causes a huge amount of wasted time and resources that should be avoided where possible.

We've learned that businesses are lazy, cheap, and untrustworthy, and will lie, steal, cheat, and abuse everything unless you write strong rules and enforce them regularly. It's in society's best interests to incentivize running good businesses, not creating messes and declaring bankruptcy.