Trooth

Absolutely it does, in fact anything that pormotes change does. Most people who argue otherwise don't understand economics. They look at the current economic landscape and decide it must be preserved (which of course is bunk). However as we know with a capitalist economy someone always comes and fills a void. If company A's costs go up becuase of compliance with some legislation, it normally means company B gains market share. A isn't happy, but the only difference is they have some force majeur that they can complain against. The reality is that they couldn't react to the change as well as their competitor. It doesn't matter that the change was legislation inspired.

In fact it actually makes them look worse, because unlike economic trends, or even consumer fads, governments always give a multi-year lead time. consumers don't.

Its easy to blame a legislation change. No one ever goes on TV to campaign about the inefficiency of internal company processes, which is the root cause of the problem.

tw-acs

-trooth

So this would be like mismanagement of funds. And management sweeping problems under the table to get bonuses or to just make it look like their department is doing good.

Trooth

Possibly, although my example can happen with no "incompetence" or intent to mislead etc. It can simply be that a company is not structured well enough to change, or can't raise the necessary funds to invest in new plant. Hard luck the legislation just precipitated the inevitable - the old dinosaur would have been killed by something else at some point anyway.

Your example is a bit more willful for which shareholders should be deposing boards, and if necessary people should be going to prison.

tw-acs

If a system is not structured in a manner that can create the proper amount of resources, then could incompetence be apportioned to any of the individuals that were the creators or that are part of the system?