Elizabeth Warren wants to introduce a new bill to make it easier to jail executives of companies who cause "severe and widespread harm to families."

The issue here is who gets to define "severe and widespread harm to families?" I would think each person on the planet probably has a different definition for that expression. But if is kept incredibly vague, it sounds great as a "populist" rallying cry, but seems to me to set up a slippery slope for the ages.

If a company misses its quarterly earnings projections and the stock plunges, does that fit this definition? Surely, a lot of families own the stock of the company making the effect widespread. It would seem that the loss of money could be severe. Should the CEO go to jail? Don't get me wrong - it would probably be a great motivator to make earnings estimates, but I don't think the punishment fits the crime in that instance.

So we come back to the question: Who decides which company managers fit this definition? Is it just the CEO or everyone in the chain of command?

Again, "Jailing the executives" is a soundbite. It will not solve the real economic or social issues of this country. I wouldn't run on this idea, not only because it is a non starter but more because there are much bigger fish to fry.