4 ms·
That's what disturbs me about these settlements. Shouldn't the settlements be used exclusively toward helping those that were negatively impacted by the bad beh
by Osiris 11y ago
That's what disturbs me about these settlements. Shouldn't the settlements be used exclusively toward helping those that were negatively impacted by the bad behavior?
- chillydawg 11y agoWell, if you take the view that everyone suffered (except a very tiny minority of shareholders and employees), then that money going into the general taxation pool is helping the victims. It pays off debt or buys bridges or whatever.
- ahallock 11y agoOr the money could be used for any of the vile activities the State is up to thus ironically contributing to more suffering. Let's not forget that.
- breischl 11y agoIn theory that makes sense. But in practice it's hard hunting down the actual effects of something this big. Also, you might not be so happy with the results of helping those who were impacted. Some of the easiest to find of those who were hurt are those who bought the mis-rated mortgage backed securities. A lot were sold to non-US entities like foreign mutual funds and sovereign wealth funds. Can you imagine how happy everyone in the US would be if a big chunk of the settlement got shipped off to rich foreigners? It might be fair in some sense, but politically it would be awful. Hence, easier to just dump it into some state and/or federal budget's general fund.
- czinck 11y agoI assume that's what the "$1.8 billion in consumer relief" is. Previous settlements over 2008 have also had some of the money earmarked for helping out distressed homeowners that were affected. The JP Morgan settlement in 2013 (the mortgage one, not the London Whale one) had $4 billion earmarked for helping out borrowers[1]. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/19/investing/jpmorgan-mortgage-settlement/ http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/19/investing/jpmorgan-mortgage-...