> Who cares if it might be illegal or the spirit of the law frowns on what we do?

Surely these things are on a moral and ethical continuum and we need to look at them individually? Pretty much every person has broken some law at least once in their lives. I don’t disagree that moral ambivalence is often necessary to make billions, but I also don’t consider all laws sacrosanct, or that breaking the law is the primary measure of a company’s moral standing.

So which laws are they allowed to break? All of them? You'll probably say "no, it's my own personal morals which they should abide by". To which someone else will say "no, your morals are crap, my morals should be the yardstick for corporate ethics". Then you might say "it should be the laws that most of us think are okay to break are optional",..... but at that point you're getting consensus on laws, and that's called governance, which you have representatives for. So then you might say "but our leaders don't represent us", at which point, your decision is probably to either 1) demand that your leaders proactively amend laws that the people find onerous (which brings up a whole nother can of worms re: democracy), or 2) let the companies do whatever they want because you can't be bothered. So we all just go with 2) and now it's easy to become a billionaire, just break the law.

That's a lot of leaps I just took, because it's honestly way too complex to get into litigating when people/companies should be allowed to break the law. The much simpler answer is to simply not let companies/people break the law, and fix the law when it needs fixing, and not just so one dude can become a billionaire real fast.