7 ms·

I haven't a clue about the whether the bailouts were important or not. What I feel like I would have liked is for the bailouts to happen AND the top 20 to 100 p

I haven't a clue about the whether the bailouts were important or not. What I feel like I would have liked is for the bailouts to happen AND the top 20 to 100 people from every financial institution to have gone to prison for at least 10 years. The president of Goldman Sachs, the president (or ex-President) of Lehman, etc... etc... What it seems like from the outside is they screwed the world over and completely got away with it on our dime. I don't know if my impression is right or what would convince me the fact that there seemed to be no repercussions for their actions is somehow the right thing. Just saying that's how it seems. I don't believe for a second those people were irreplaceable as some have suggested. People are replaced at giant companies all the time and the companies keep on functioning. If we need one example Steve Jobs death certainly shows that. Could pick any other CEO that left or was shoved out or past away.

oh_sigh 8y ago
Did those people do anything wrong or were they just essentially incompetent or not adequate for the job? Bonus clawbacks after government bailout are one thing but jailing people who probably didn't do anything criminal is a dangerous precedent.
- s3krit 8y ago
  There exists the concept of criminal negligence. I would say being in the wrong and being incompetent are not mutually exclusive.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  If they are incompetent and they have consciously taken the positions they hold - then they are liable. Finance isn't "revolutionary" tech - there isn't much you can do that requires high risks and actually rewards you in the long run. I would wonder what you'd say about a general who didn't know that using chemical warfare is a possible tribunal scenario. We have a similar legal case in maritime law, where captains can be sued for anything that happens on their ships. If you can't take on that role and it's liability - then you shouldn't be the captain.
  - freddie_mercury 8y ago
    > Finance isn't "revolutionary" tech - there isn't much you can do that requires high risks and actually rewards you in the long run. I don't think you read the article because it is based on a 700 page book about how it was revolutionary tech. It was just revolutionary finance tech. There was no ABCP before, there were no CDOs before, there were no central bank swaps before, there was no wholesale funding market, there were no offshore dollar banking market, etc. It is hard to take seriously any arguments that the bankers were incompetent when you look at the sheer number of affected institutions -- you're left defending a claim that virtually every banker and most companies (look at the impacts on, say, Russian resource companies when they could no longer roll their dollar debt in wholesale funding markets in 2008) are incompetent. And that's always going to be difficult argument to make.
    - andrepd 8y ago
      All of those "technologies" you mentioned are schemes for a small elite to accumulate wealth.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> you're left defending a claim that virtually every banker and most companies I don't need to defend that claim: most companies didn't care and neither they had enough resources to do their own, full due diligence into the state of America at the point of time. That's the job of the banks. The fact that Russian companies held their debt in dollars has nothing to do with CDOs but rather their (false) belief in the stability of American economy.
seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Sending people to prison involves prosecuting people for breaking laws somehow, which isn’t easy. You can’t just send them to jail on a whim. Even if what they did was wrong, unless there was a law against it the government didn’t really have many options here. They could make up some laws after the fact to prevent future abuse, but cannot make them retroactive.
- slivym 8y ago
  Even if you subscribe to the idea that there weren't correct laws in place to ensure that those who should have been criminally responsible, you then have to contend with the the corollary. Which is that instead of prosecuting those responsible, legislation should have been brought forward so that this couldn't happen legally in the future. That didn't even begin to happen- and it's not difficult to see how that has fundamentally poisoned the well in the US.
  - bko 8y ago
    > legislation should have been brought forward so that this couldn't happen legally in the future What couldn't happen legally?
    - Brockenstein 8y ago
      A repeat of 2008. The idea being that there wasn't sufficient laws in protections in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, or that people most directly involved can't just skate. Problem is though, even if laws were passed, once 2008 fades far enough into the past you'll get someone with a really bright idea, "Hey there's too much regulation stifling our economy. If we just got rid of all those pesky laws the free market would create a utopia!" Because every tom, dick and harry wants their chance to repeat history after the last tom, dick and harry have died.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I’m all for that, and some new civil laws were introduced. Trump is busy trying to undo them ATM, but there we go. The problem criminal laws, however, is that they should be really well defined without being overly restricting. Being greedy can’t be made a crime; it has to be fraud, racketeering, or something obvious.
lucozade 8y ago
Is it their failure you believe they should be jailed for or something else? Do you believe that the CEO of any company that fails should be jailed or just banks? There was undoubtedly plenty of hubris, greed and incompetence to go round. I also believe that some of what occurred should, in hindsight, have been illegal. But having some sort of sacrifice to appease the gods is a little outdated. Oh, and yes, all the CEOs were replaceable. Irreplaceability is a very silly argument.
- andrepd 8y ago
  The companies didn't just "fail", which implies accident or even incompetence but not malice. What happened was that the elite of the financial services industry arranged a nice little cash cow for themselves, enabling them personally to live lavish lifestyles, knowing perfectly well the consequences in the end (which, for them, due to their complicity with the regulators and governments, were none).
- raesene9 8y ago
  As to CEOs being irreplaceable sure, but they're also very focused on not going to jail. Personal liability for top execs which might actually result in jail time is a powerful incentive for those execs to ensure their companies don't engage in that kind of behaviour.
  - Ntrails 8y ago
    No. It's an incentive to change the corporate structure. Sorry, but it's simply not that simple.
- gutnor 8y ago
  > I also believe that some of what occurred should, in hindsight, have been illegal. That is the main issue. Nothing you can do against individuals that acted legally. However hindsight happened very quickly, almost from day 1. There is no excuse that the bailouts didn't come with extremely punitive string attached only loosened after the law had been updated. That did not happen. There is no moral to the story, no happy ending. Worse, hindsight works both ways. Maybe the current generation of financial company executives have learned their lesson, but the next one will have no such reserve.
koolba 8y ago
What crime did each of those executives commit? That’s what needs to be answered. Otherwise your comment reads like a mob chanting “We want blood!” Being greedy is not a crime. Taking advantage of lax regulations is not a crime. Being bailed out with tax dollars for risks that paid you off privately if they won is not a crime.
- rhaps0dy 8y ago
  > Being greedy is not a crime. Taking advantage of lax regulations is not a crime. Being bailed out with tax dollars for risks that paid you off privately if they won is not a crime. Maybe that's your point, but therein lies the problem. Doing all these things has an upside but no downside, therefore we're encouraging antisocial behaviour.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  Some would probably settle for blood. However, plenty of others aren't interested in that. What they seek is simply what we are told the republic promises us and the rest of the world. That is, justice. Instead, per the article, there was no justice and no closure. __And__ the voice(s) of the mob(s) - in the absence of justice - are raising louder and louder. The impact from 2008 is far from over.
- crispyambulance 8y ago
  I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going.
  - koolba 8y ago
    > I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. > But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What's even more scary though is metering out justice based on perceived morality. Justice needs to be impartial, otherwise you're literally putting people in jail because your dislike them. > The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. On the contrary, I see the election of Trump as a demonstration of people's faith in the system. It worked as intended and they got what they (electorally speaking) asked for. > It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going. I really doubt that. I've got significantly more faith in our shared humanity and the rule of law. I do find it disturbing how a lot of the politics on the left has shifted from policy disagreement to directly stoking violence. But it'll eventually pass. Unemployment and immigration policy is at a tipping point where the only choice for employers is going to be rising wages. The left is going to have a hard time arguing that's a bad thing.
bko 8y ago
What would all those executives go to prison for?
chiefalchemist 8y ago
At the very least the WS power structure should have been redistributed. Prior to the crisis there were eight major WS "banks." After there were seven. We were told by many elected officials that less was not a positive for the rest of us. Ten years later, after eight years of a "liberal" POTUS, there's still seven. Editorial: In the context of such history, DJT is the least of my worries.
- kingaillas 8y ago
  >after eight years of a "liberal" POTUS 6 of those 8 years fighting a conservative Congress in both houses. Only 4 months of those other 2 years did he have enough Senate votes to bypass conservative filibusters. He spent that time/capital/effort squeezing ACA through.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    My understanding is the Obama DOJ was "guided" to turn their backs on any prosecution of WS and WS execs. The bottomline, zero effort was put into it. None. Given the magnitude that's not acceptable. I'm pretty sure DJT sent BHO a thank you card.

oh_sigh 8y ago

Did those people do anything wrong or were they just essentially incompetent or not adequate for the job? Bonus clawbacks after government bailout are one thing but jailing people who probably didn't do anything criminal is a dangerous precedent.

s3krit 8y ago
There exists the concept of criminal negligence. I would say being in the wrong and being incompetent are not mutually exclusive.
heavenlyblue 8y ago
If they are incompetent and they have consciously taken the positions they hold - then they are liable. Finance isn't "revolutionary" tech - there isn't much you can do that requires high risks and actually rewards you in the long run. I would wonder what you'd say about a general who didn't know that using chemical warfare is a possible tribunal scenario. We have a similar legal case in maritime law, where captains can be sued for anything that happens on their ships. If you can't take on that role and it's liability - then you shouldn't be the captain.
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  > Finance isn't "revolutionary" tech - there isn't much you can do that requires high risks and actually rewards you in the long run. I don't think you read the article because it is based on a 700 page book about how it was revolutionary tech. It was just revolutionary finance tech. There was no ABCP before, there were no CDOs before, there were no central bank swaps before, there was no wholesale funding market, there were no offshore dollar banking market, etc. It is hard to take seriously any arguments that the bankers were incompetent when you look at the sheer number of affected institutions -- you're left defending a claim that virtually every banker and most companies (look at the impacts on, say, Russian resource companies when they could no longer roll their dollar debt in wholesale funding markets in 2008) are incompetent. And that's always going to be difficult argument to make.
  - andrepd 8y ago
    All of those "technologies" you mentioned are schemes for a small elite to accumulate wealth.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> you're left defending a claim that virtually every banker and most companies I don't need to defend that claim: most companies didn't care and neither they had enough resources to do their own, full due diligence into the state of America at the point of time. That's the job of the banks. The fact that Russian companies held their debt in dollars has nothing to do with CDOs but rather their (false) belief in the stability of American economy.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Sending people to prison involves prosecuting people for breaking laws somehow, which isn’t easy. You can’t just send them to jail on a whim. Even if what they did was wrong, unless there was a law against it the government didn’t really have many options here. They could make up some laws after the fact to prevent future abuse, but cannot make them retroactive.

slivym 8y ago
Even if you subscribe to the idea that there weren't correct laws in place to ensure that those who should have been criminally responsible, you then have to contend with the the corollary. Which is that instead of prosecuting those responsible, legislation should have been brought forward so that this couldn't happen legally in the future. That didn't even begin to happen- and it's not difficult to see how that has fundamentally poisoned the well in the US.
- bko 8y ago
  > legislation should have been brought forward so that this couldn't happen legally in the future What couldn't happen legally?
  - Brockenstein 8y ago
    A repeat of 2008. The idea being that there wasn't sufficient laws in protections in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening again, or that people most directly involved can't just skate. Problem is though, even if laws were passed, once 2008 fades far enough into the past you'll get someone with a really bright idea, "Hey there's too much regulation stifling our economy. If we just got rid of all those pesky laws the free market would create a utopia!" Because every tom, dick and harry wants their chance to repeat history after the last tom, dick and harry have died.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I’m all for that, and some new civil laws were introduced. Trump is busy trying to undo them ATM, but there we go. The problem criminal laws, however, is that they should be really well defined without being overly restricting. Being greedy can’t be made a crime; it has to be fraud, racketeering, or something obvious.

lucozade 8y ago

Is it their failure you believe they should be jailed for or something else? Do you believe that the CEO of any company that fails should be jailed or just banks? There was undoubtedly plenty of hubris, greed and incompetence to go round. I also believe that some of what occurred should, in hindsight, have been illegal. But having some sort of sacrifice to appease the gods is a little outdated. Oh, and yes, all the CEOs were replaceable. Irreplaceability is a very silly argument.

andrepd 8y ago
The companies didn't just "fail", which implies accident or even incompetence but not malice. What happened was that the elite of the financial services industry arranged a nice little cash cow for themselves, enabling them personally to live lavish lifestyles, knowing perfectly well the consequences in the end (which, for them, due to their complicity with the regulators and governments, were none).
raesene9 8y ago
As to CEOs being irreplaceable sure, but they're also very focused on not going to jail. Personal liability for top execs which might actually result in jail time is a powerful incentive for those execs to ensure their companies don't engage in that kind of behaviour.
- Ntrails 8y ago
  No. It's an incentive to change the corporate structure. Sorry, but it's simply not that simple.
gutnor 8y ago
> I also believe that some of what occurred should, in hindsight, have been illegal. That is the main issue. Nothing you can do against individuals that acted legally. However hindsight happened very quickly, almost from day 1. There is no excuse that the bailouts didn't come with extremely punitive string attached only loosened after the law had been updated. That did not happen. There is no moral to the story, no happy ending. Worse, hindsight works both ways. Maybe the current generation of financial company executives have learned their lesson, but the next one will have no such reserve.

koolba 8y ago

What crime did each of those executives commit? That’s what needs to be answered. Otherwise your comment reads like a mob chanting “We want blood!” Being greedy is not a crime. Taking advantage of lax regulations is not a crime. Being bailed out with tax dollars for risks that paid you off privately if they won is not a crime.

rhaps0dy 8y ago
> Being greedy is not a crime. Taking advantage of lax regulations is not a crime. Being bailed out with tax dollars for risks that paid you off privately if they won is not a crime. Maybe that's your point, but therein lies the problem. Doing all these things has an upside but no downside, therefore we're encouraging antisocial behaviour.
chiefalchemist 8y ago
Some would probably settle for blood. However, plenty of others aren't interested in that. What they seek is simply what we are told the republic promises us and the rest of the world. That is, justice. Instead, per the article, there was no justice and no closure. __And__ the voice(s) of the mob(s) - in the absence of justice - are raising louder and louder. The impact from 2008 is far from over.
crispyambulance 8y ago
I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going.
- koolba 8y ago
  > I see this sentiment fairly regularly on HN. It's the idea that laws can sufficiently encapsulate ethical behavior (the rules) when they're strictly enforced, that they're the best thing we got, so live with it. > But there are many behaviors which aren't "crimes" but which are morally repulsive. I don't agree with that concept. I don't think it's possible to legislate morality and the entire concept is downright scary. What's even more scary though is metering out justice based on perceived morality. Justice needs to be impartial, otherwise you're literally putting people in jail because your dislike them. > The danger of not reacting, one way or another, to such inequities is that people lose faith in the system. Already, the election of Trump and rise of fascist sentiments everywhere are like a giant "fuck you" to politics as usual. On the contrary, I see the election of Trump as a demonstration of people's faith in the system. It worked as intended and they got what they (electorally speaking) asked for. > It can get much worse. At some point, as one billionaire said, "the pitchforks are coming". I don't think we'll be able to avoid it the way things are going. I really doubt that. I've got significantly more faith in our shared humanity and the rule of law. I do find it disturbing how a lot of the politics on the left has shifted from policy disagreement to directly stoking violence. But it'll eventually pass. Unemployment and immigration policy is at a tipping point where the only choice for employers is going to be rising wages. The left is going to have a hard time arguing that's a bad thing.

bko 8y ago

What would all those executives go to prison for?

chiefalchemist 8y ago

At the very least the WS power structure should have been redistributed. Prior to the crisis there were eight major WS "banks." After there were seven. We were told by many elected officials that less was not a positive for the rest of us. Ten years later, after eight years of a "liberal" POTUS, there's still seven. Editorial: In the context of such history, DJT is the least of my worries.

kingaillas 8y ago
>after eight years of a "liberal" POTUS 6 of those 8 years fighting a conservative Congress in both houses. Only 4 months of those other 2 years did he have enough Senate votes to bypass conservative filibusters. He spent that time/capital/effort squeezing ACA through.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  My understanding is the Obama DOJ was "guided" to turn their backs on any prosecution of WS and WS execs. The bottomline, zero effort was put into it. None. Given the magnitude that's not acceptable. I'm pretty sure DJT sent BHO a thank you card.