Hacker News Reader

Comment by psunavy03 | Hacker News Reader

And the (hypothetical) effect on the value of a company in the (hypothetical) event they are proven to assassinate critics is . . . what exactly?

View on HN

Are we talking about cases where someone at the company explicitly asked/ordered a kill, or including *wink* "handlings" of people? For example in 2012 the (EU) ECCHR said Nestle was responsible for the 2005 death of Luciano Romero in 2005. What about when in the case of the Banana Massacre you had Chiquita Banana making payments to the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, who caused the deaths?

Looking at Nestle's historic stock performance I see no (significant) change around 2005 or 2012.

[0] - https://www.dw.com/en/nestle-under-fire-over-colombian-murde...

While obviously horrific, there's a large difference between paying a bunch of paramilitary members of a country where out and out murder by government is already an issue, and murdering citizens using arcane secretive methods such as suicide by hanging and magic mrsa infection.

If boeing is SO important to the government that justice doesn't matter, then it's probably a fuckload easier to bribe a judge or two and make sure the court cases never get anywhere than to orchestrate not one, but two, clandestine hits.

Further, why the fuck would you do the hits now? In both cases the information was brought out YEARS ago, and already in court. It hardly matters if they're alive or dead at this point.

I'm not suggesting Boeing was behind the deaths. I was replying to a comment that suggested that if a company took part in killing someone, it would hurt the stock/company significantly. I don't think that is true at all.

In the long term? Not much. Dow is Boeing's future.

I'm sorry, your tinfoil hat is slipping.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com