Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   We know corporations are people. So when a dead corporation's name comes back, is it a zombie corporation? Arthur Andersen wants BRAAAAIIIINNNZZZZzzzzz   (npr.org) divider line 47
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

4686 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Sep 2014 at 12:08 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



47 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-09-02 11:33:48 AM  
Bell & Howell and Indian motorcycles come to mind. Bugatti was out of autos for about 30 years before someone reanimated that.  Levis seems to have gone through a reanimation, but it might just be a puppet.
 
2014-09-02 12:09:11 PM  
Don't forget the most recent one...Hostess.
 
2014-09-02 12:15:58 PM  
Corporations are not people, they are persons. Legally there is a big difference.
 
2014-09-02 12:17:10 PM  
Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?
 
2014-09-02 12:18:43 PM  

BlindRaise: Corporations are not people, they are persons. Legally there is a big difference.


So Soylent Green is persons?
 
2014-09-02 12:18:52 PM  
Waldorf Music in Germany came back from the dead as well  \m/
 
2014-09-02 12:23:47 PM  

Pinnacle Point: BlindRaise: Corporations are not people, they are persons. Legally there is a big difference.

So Soylent Green is persons?


The statement stands on its own.
 
2014-09-02 12:30:18 PM  
They already spun off their IT outsourcing worm, which rhymes with shiatsensor.

Why not bring back the accounting firm that brought us Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley?
 
2014-09-02 12:33:18 PM  
Great idea. Resurect the firm that allowed scumbag corporate officers to filch thousands out of their retirements and life savings. Fark Enron and fark Arthur Anderson.

/fukrs should have hung
 
2014-09-02 12:34:45 PM  
Never heard of them.  "Arthur" is a pretty trustworthy sounding name though so they got that going for them.
 
2014-09-02 12:40:04 PM  

InfrasonicTom: They already spun off their IT outsourcing worm, which rhymes with shiatsensor.

Why not bring back the accounting firm that brought us Enron and Sarbanes-Oxley?


...and a string of other accounting scandals before Enron that it managed to avoid taking the legal blame for.
 
2014-09-02 12:41:21 PM  

D135: Never heard of them.  "Arthur" is a pretty trustworthy sounding name though so they got that going for them.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enron_scandal
 
2014-09-02 12:42:47 PM  

Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States
 
2014-09-02 12:44:39 PM  
I really have to wonder who thought picking up this name was a good idea.


It would be like saying, "Let's name the kid Rush Limbaugh or Jim Hoft.  Nobody's using that."
 
2014-09-02 12:45:40 PM  
Abercrombie and Fitch founders back when the company was a respectable sportswear seller:

Abercrombie:  upload.wikimedia.org

Fitch:  upload.wikimedia.org


Head of current undead Abercrombie and Fitch corporation:

38.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-09-02 12:46:55 PM  

D135: Never heard of them.  "Arthur" is a pretty trustworthy sounding name though so they got that going for them.


You've never met this diabolical person then!


img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-09-02 12:52:06 PM  

Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?


Supreme Court unanimously overturned conviction as the jury wasn't given adequate instructions regarding how to detein culpability.

It was a huge black eye for the govt. they killed a firm and put tens of thousands out of work for no reason.
 
2014-09-02 12:55:37 PM  

Debeo Summa Credo: Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?

Supreme Court unanimously overturned conviction as the jury wasn't given adequate instructions regarding how to detein culpability.

It was a huge black eye for the govt. they killed a firm and put tens of thousands out of work for no reason.


If you really think that there was "no reason" for AA to go down/away, then surely you also think that due to supply/demand being what it is, the demand remained the same and therefore supply stabilized accordingly - and, as TFA already pointed out for you, those people ended up just working elsewhere?
 
2014-09-02 01:00:03 PM  

SigmaAlgebra: Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States


The short version is that they escaped on a technicality regarding the instructions the jury were given about the specific statute that AA was charged under.

Since AA was effectively dead and buried by the time the conviction was overturned, nobody bothered to retry the case so we'll never know for sure if they could have been convicted, but then again nobody was crying much for the people who were shredding Enron documents as fast as they possibly could to keep them out of the hands of the SEC.
 
2014-09-02 01:01:39 PM  
All right I am putting in for a Studebaker dealership!  Maybe I can re-animate Mr. Ed to do an ad campaign.  Boy am I dating myself.

Lil, bit of history, Studebaker made some fantrastic cars in the 50's and then got complacement in the 60's.  Although they did do the Avanti in the 60's whose styling was ahead of its time.  The Mr. Ed shpw did advertising for the Studebaker's.  Back then there was not a philosphy of too big to fail, you were stupid, you went bankrupt.  End of story.  Well, maybe if this artice lis right I could be in for a sweet dealership:)
 
2014-09-02 01:06:02 PM  

SigmaAlgebra: Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States


Wow.

During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
. . . .
Arthur Andersen managers did instruct their employees to delete Enron-related files, but those actions were within their document retention policy. If the document retention policy was constructed to keep certain information private, even from the government, Arthur Andersen was still not corruptly persuading their employees to keep said information private.


See? If specific documents relating to an impending SEC investigation were deleted, well that was just a  coincidence. A wonderful, fortuitous coincidence.
 
GBB
2014-09-02 01:09:12 PM  
Corporations are people that are conceived by the union of multiple partners..... how are Republicans OK with such non-traditional unions?
 
2014-09-02 01:15:06 PM  

NutWrench: SigmaAlgebra: Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States

Wow.

During the fall of Enron, Arthur Andersen, Enron's accounting firm, instructed its employees to destroy documents relating to Enron after Andersen officials learned they would soon be investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
. . . .
Arthur Andersen managers did instruct their employees to delete Enron-related files, but those actions were within their document retention policy. If the document retention policy was constructed to keep certain information private, even from the government, Arthur Andersen was still not corruptly persuading their employees to keep said information private.

See? If specific documents relating to an impending SEC investigation were deleted, well that was just a  coincidence. A wonderful, fortuitous coincidence.


The thing about Arthur Anderson is that it wasn't just Enron where they massively either farked or intentionally failed to properly audit. There were a bunch of lower profile fraud cases that they were involved in.
 
2014-09-02 01:16:06 PM  

czetie: SigmaAlgebra: Aar1012: Dumb Question- But why did the SCOTUS overturn the Arthur Andersen conviction?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Andersen_LLP_v._United_States

The short version is that they escaped on a technicality regarding the instructions the jury were given about the specific statute that AA was charged under.

Since AA was effectively dead and buried by the time the conviction was overturned, nobody bothered to retry the case so we'll never know for sure if they could have been convicted, but then again nobody was crying much for the people who were shredding Enron documents as fast as they possibly could to keep them out of the hands of the SEC.


The long version is the Supreme Court unanimously felt the jury was given improper instructions regarding determination of culpability for the firm and it's tens of thousands of employees for the acts of one team shredding documents, and the govt didn't bother to retry the case since they would have been triply embarrassed if the firm they killed were found not guilty in the second trial.

Happy ending for the accounting industry - Enron led to Sarbanes Oxley (the most ridiculous piece of blind regulatory overreach until Dodd Frank), which forced companies to spend billions on accounting services to comply.
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-09-02 01:19:04 PM  
If you take the AA name you want to be considered corrupt and enablers of fraud.

But I'm not in the market for high end corruption fraud services. For all I know Wall Street types will flock to the name like flies to a bowl of
 
2014-09-02 01:28:56 PM  
The term you're looking for is Brand Necrophilia
 
2014-09-02 01:44:27 PM  
Maybe they're just our savior, returned to deliver us to the promised land.
 
2014-09-02 01:48:18 PM  
In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?
 
2014-09-02 01:58:36 PM  

BlindRaise: Corporations are not people, they are persons. Legally there is a big difference.


Which is...?
 
2014-09-02 02:08:12 PM  

djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?


Corporate Personhood.  Its been around a very long time.
 
2014-09-02 02:10:23 PM  

djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?


for those like yourself who have been hiding under a rock, the reference is to the SCOTUS case "Citizens United."
 
2014-09-02 02:13:13 PM  

gingerjet: djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?

Corporate Personhood.  Its been around a very long time.


See BlindRaise, earlier in the thread. People != persons.
 
2014-09-02 02:14:38 PM  
As a former Arthur Andersen employee, I'm getting a kick... etc.

Appropriately enough, back when Arthur Andersen was in a protracted legal battle with itself (Andersen Consulting), part of the settlement was that Andersen Consulting was forced to change its name (Accenture). The Andersen name's got some heft, I'll give it that.
 
2014-09-02 02:22:58 PM  
Actually, zombie corporations are companies the linger on thanks to government support through subsidies and protective tariffs, despite the fact that they're uncompetitive in the market. They cling on to finances and market share that ought to go to more efficient companies. The biggest examples are Japan Tobacco as well as state owned enterprises in China. Sort of the business version of welfare queens.
 
2014-09-02 02:27:12 PM  

djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true. Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?


"Corporations are people."
-Jack Welch (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230374070457 7524823 306803692)

//And you can probably add anyone who understands "piercing the corporate veil" to the list of folks who take issue with corporate personhood.
 
2014-09-02 02:37:28 PM  

Dr. Steve Brule: As a former Arthur Andersen employee, I'm getting a kick... etc.

Appropriately enough, back when Arthur Andersen was in a protracted legal battle with itself (Andersen Consulting), part of the settlement was that Andersen Consulting was forced to change its name (Accenture). The Andersen name's got some heft, I'll give it that.


worked at both AA and WTAS, so I'm really getting a kick.  bunch of knobs if you axe me
 
2014-09-02 02:37:40 PM  

djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?


"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend." - noted Democrat Mitt Romney.  Wait a minute. He wasn't a Democrat...
 
2014-09-02 02:47:23 PM  

Heatseeker: djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend." - noted Democrat Mitt Romney.  Wait a minute. He wasn't a Democrat...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2h8ujX6T0A
 
2014-09-02 02:49:49 PM  

Heatseeker: djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?

"Corporations are people, my friend... of course they are. Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to the people. Where do you think it goes? Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People's pockets. Human beings my friend." - noted Democrat Mitt Romney.  Wait a minute. He wasn't a Democrat...


Mitt Romney may be a douche, but it's very clear here that he means something different than Democrats do when they shiat themselves about Citizens United.

Citizens United, in the end, was about whether the government can ban you from making a movie about a candidate for public office. It's shocking that anybody thinks that the answer should have been "yes".
 
2014-09-02 02:51:07 PM  
If you incorporate, then shut down that corporation before it earns a single penny, did you just have an abortion?
 
2014-09-02 02:55:07 PM  

ChubbyTiger: gingerjet: djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true.  Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?

Corporate Personhood.  Its been around a very long time.

See BlindRaise, earlier in the thread. People != persons.


BlindRaise doesn't say what the difference is.  Is there one?
 
2014-09-02 03:27:28 PM  
Got my first contracting job because Anderson Consulting convinced this company to split in to two entities.  Five years later, I the same job because Anderson convinced this company to merge back together.  The one half of the company had to pay off a 99 year lease when they moved back to corporate hq.

The company employee who replaced me would not work OT or Saturdays.  Even though they were producing and shipping radio pharmaceuticals with a 24 hour lifespan
 
2014-09-02 03:44:21 PM  
Yes, that's it exactly.
maclad1888.blog.com
maclad1888.blog.com
maclad1888.blog.com
 
2014-09-02 04:51:31 PM  
Did anyone notice that NPR spelled it wrong in the URL?
 
2014-09-02 05:52:51 PM  

Flargan: djh0101010: In a decade or so, I've never seen ANYONE claim that corporations are people, other than democrats complaining that it's not true. Has ANYONE even remotely centralist ever pretended that corporations are people, other than leftists pretending that this is a problem?

"Corporations are people."
-Jack Welch (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230374070457 7524823 306803692)

//And you can probably add anyone who understands "piercing the corporate veil" to the list of folks who take issue with corporate personhood.


harvestpublicmedia.org
"Corporations are people, my friend."

 
2014-09-02 07:59:21 PM  
Coming soon: Overnight shipping and a flat $5 rate if it fits in one of our boxes.  A trusted name to deliver tea, mail, or even "farm equipment" since 1600.

img3.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-09-02 08:36:54 PM  

2xcited: All right I am putting in for a Studebaker dealership!  Maybe I can re-animate Mr. Ed to do an ad campaign.  Boy am I dating myself.

Lil, bit of history, Studebaker made some fantrastic cars in the 50's and then got complacement in the 60's.  Although they did do the Avanti in the 60's whose styling was ahead of its time.  The Mr. Ed shpw did advertising for the Studebaker's.  Back then there was not a philosphy of too big to fail, you were stupid, you went bankrupt.  End of story.  Well, maybe if this artice lis right I could be in for a sweet dealership:)


Here's the guy you wanna talk to.

http://www.studebakermotorcompany.com/home/home/

/sounds a little...off
//but if they bring back the GT hawk, gimme a call
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report