5 ms·
By setting up an antagonistic system, I think. A system of checks and balances in which the interests of the employees of the SEC are OPPOSED to the interests o
by littletimmy 10y ago
By setting up an antagonistic system, I think. A system of checks and balances in which the interests of the employees of the SEC are OPPOSED to the interests of the banks.
For example, if the SEC successfully fines JP Morgan a sum of $2 billion, let the key employees of that prosecution them keep $500 million and distribute it among themselves. That way the employees of the SEC have an incentive to be antagonistic to banks.
- jonknee 10y ago> For example, if the SEC successfully fines JP Morgan a sum of $2 billion, let the key employees of that prosecution them keep $500 million and distribute it among themselves. That way the employees of the SEC have an incentive to be antagonistic to banks. Then the SEC will start making a bunch of awful rules that will transfer the wealth of widely held companies to a few regulators.
- xj9 10y agoThey should disperse that cash to the taxpayers.
- jonknee 10y agoWell that's what they do now. The only fines that go to people are whistleblower cases and they get a percentage (and aren't government employees in charge of making the rules!).
- littletimmy 10y agoThen the awful rules can be challenged in a court of law, which will act as the limiting power on the SEC. There does exist a mechanism for challenging malicious prosecution in our legal system, and if the corporations feel they are victimized, they can use it. The point, however, is without antagonistic checks and balances in place, you will always run into the "revolving door" problem.
- sievebrain 10y agoChallenged how? In legal systems like that of the USA, the regulators can make new laws. You can't indisputably break a law and then challenge the law itself unless it's unconstitutional, but the constitution has very little to say on the topic of financial regulation.