4 ms·

At some point, the "disconnect" between shareholders (even and as, on a massive scale -- especially and specifically these "too big to fail" institutions) and t

At some point, the "disconnect" between shareholders (even and as, on a massive scale -- especially and specifically these "too big to fail" institutions) and their businesses needs to be breached. Businesses with chronic, systemic wrong-doing need to be put down. Wells Fargo is a prime, current candidate. If this were a Democratic administration, or a rational Republican one, I'd say, it's time for the FDIC (too bad Sheila Bair's no longer its head) to come in, take over, and sell off Wells Fargo. And that we have a Savings and Loan type investigation and prosecution, flipping the smaller fish until we get to the top and lock them up. (And strip them of their ill-gotten personal assets.) At this point, shareholders should be well informed as to where their growth and profits are coming from. If they want to invest in such behavior, they should equally reap the results, in financial terms. In other, if currently unrealistically ideal words, "No one is above the law." At some point, you have to act to effectively put the brakes on such behavior. Otherwise, it takes over.

ajmurmann 9y ago
It also touches on my biggest issue with corporate personhood. Corporations cannot go to jail. This needs to get fixed really bad. To me the solution is getting rid of the corporate personhood shield and prosecuting the individuals who actually made the decisions and send them to the same prisons we send drug dealers. No club fed.
revmoo 9y ago
Right? All these other banks are like "let's create sophisicated financial instruments to siphon money out of the global economy" and Wells Fargo is just like "what if we just steal money from people?" It's the most hood corporation lmao
kbutler 9y ago
> If this were a Democratic administration, or a rational Republican one, I'd say, it's time for the FDIC (too bad Sheila Bair's no longer its head) to come in, take over, and sell off Wells Fargo. #1) but you didn't when it was a democratic administration #2) why does the party of the president determine what you would say? The history of too big to fail is littered with discarded ethics and increasing moral hazard on both sides of the aisle (80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s).
- pasbesoin 9y ago
  I did say this. And I was increasingly disappointed in the Democrats' "weak tea" responses. It's a good point about "administration", too. I used it as a poor and incorrect stand-in for "majority". At this point in time, I see some sort of corrective action as more likely from the Democratic side or from those Republicans who do not equate "conservative" with an ideology of personal greed and self-interest. For one point, systemic criminal behavior that also abuses your customer base, does not tend to conserve the institution -- unless it is or is granted quasi-monopoly status where those affected have no means of redress -- nor perhaps meaningful, better alternatives (e.g. an oligarchy of corruption, such as existed in the mortgage and mortgage-backed-securities market leading up to the 2008 crash). Anyway, yeah, I fear even more our chances in the face of "the majority's" drive to neuter and dismantle existing law and regulation. But I don't believe either side has had too much interest in substantially, not to mention fully, addressing these problems. Not since..... Well, I guess since Carter. And the now seemingly anomalous prosecution of the Savings and Loan scandal in the latter '80's. Mine's a rather limited perspective. But the string of incidents -- story after story about institutions getting off with fines that pale in comparison to their profits (those at the expense of often massive externalized costs) -- seems pretty apparent. And actual jail time, as a result of the Savings and Loan malfeasance, did seem to at least produce a "tap on the brakes", for a short time.
icelancer 9y ago
>>If this were a Democratic administration In this case, there is no defining line between the two major parties. They both rely heavily on bank lobbyists and come from their stock. There's going to be no changes.

ajmurmann 9y ago

It also touches on my biggest issue with corporate personhood. Corporations cannot go to jail. This needs to get fixed really bad. To me the solution is getting rid of the corporate personhood shield and prosecuting the individuals who actually made the decisions and send them to the same prisons we send drug dealers. No club fed.

revmoo 9y ago

Right? All these other banks are like "let's create sophisicated financial instruments to siphon money out of the global economy" and Wells Fargo is just like "what if we just steal money from people?" It's the most hood corporation lmao

kbutler 9y ago

> If this were a Democratic administration, or a rational Republican one, I'd say, it's time for the FDIC (too bad Sheila Bair's no longer its head) to come in, take over, and sell off Wells Fargo. #1) but you didn't when it was a democratic administration #2) why does the party of the president determine what you would say? The history of too big to fail is littered with discarded ethics and increasing moral hazard on both sides of the aisle (80s, 90s, 00s, and 10s).

pasbesoin 9y ago
I did say this. And I was increasingly disappointed in the Democrats' "weak tea" responses. It's a good point about "administration", too. I used it as a poor and incorrect stand-in for "majority". At this point in time, I see some sort of corrective action as more likely from the Democratic side or from those Republicans who do not equate "conservative" with an ideology of personal greed and self-interest. For one point, systemic criminal behavior that also abuses your customer base, does not tend to conserve the institution -- unless it is or is granted quasi-monopoly status where those affected have no means of redress -- nor perhaps meaningful, better alternatives (e.g. an oligarchy of corruption, such as existed in the mortgage and mortgage-backed-securities market leading up to the 2008 crash). Anyway, yeah, I fear even more our chances in the face of "the majority's" drive to neuter and dismantle existing law and regulation. But I don't believe either side has had too much interest in substantially, not to mention fully, addressing these problems. Not since..... Well, I guess since Carter. And the now seemingly anomalous prosecution of the Savings and Loan scandal in the latter '80's. Mine's a rather limited perspective. But the string of incidents -- story after story about institutions getting off with fines that pale in comparison to their profits (those at the expense of often massive externalized costs) -- seems pretty apparent. And actual jail time, as a result of the Savings and Loan malfeasance, did seem to at least produce a "tap on the brakes", for a short time.

icelancer 9y ago

>>If this were a Democratic administration In this case, there is no defining line between the two major parties. They both rely heavily on bank lobbyists and come from their stock. There's going to be no changes.