6 ms·
Confidence in the market, and preventing panic was the highest priority, which is why no bank executive was punished in any meaningful way. Frontline did a gre
by josefresco 8y ago
Confidence in the market, and preventing panic was the highest priority, which is why no bank executive was punished in any meaningful way.
Frontline did a great piece on this, which I watched years ago. Not sure if this is it: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/meltdown/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/meltdown/
I believe it also explains why the election hacking of 2016 wasn't and isn't being addressed fully. If the US were to admit actual votes were changed it would create panic and instability. It also doesn't help that one side literally invited the hacking, and refused to investigate because it helped them. I'm sure there were tons of people who made good money in 2008, who weren't eager for investigation or actual reform.
- dhimes 8y agoThrowing the bad guys in jail would have spurred even more confidence in the market. The same guys are still in charge.
- josefresco 8y ago"The same guys are still in charge" The problem is, there are no "other guys".
- shshhdhs 8y agoThat’s not true
- lovich 8y agoThere are shit tons of other "guys". The industry is making new "guys" every year. Maybe they don't have as much experience as the current guys, but does that matter when those people use their experience to rush after profit for themselves when they know it will cause problems like this?
- ionised 8y agoThere are always other guys.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- lovich 8y agoIt degrades the rule of law when lawbreakers not only don't even get a slap on the wrist, but in fact get rewarded for their lawbreaking. Since the confidence in the markets only exists because people believe the laws governing it will be enforced, not punishing anyone degrades the confidence in the market.
- pc86 8y agoWhen people who know what they're talking about talk about "election hacking," they know that no actual hacking took place. They were Facebook ads. That's it.
- josefresco 8y ago"They were Facebook ads. That's it." If you think Russian "election interference" (does that term make you feel better?) was limited to "Facebook ads" you either haven't been paying attention, or are just trolling. I'm going to guess the latter.
- r_smart 8y agoI've been checked out for a bit. Did they finally come up with concrete evidence? Are you saying they actually altered vote tallies?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ionised 8y agoThat's a straight up lie.
- rustybelt 8y agoI agree that we shouldn't claim votes were changed without evidence, but you are forgetting about the DNC hack and subsequent email leaks.
- akiselev 8y agoYou're kidding, right? There is an unsealed speaking indictment from the Department of Justice [1] that details the GRU hacking operation that released the DNC emails. [1] https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download
- brewdad 8y agoWe do have evidence that the voter databases of at least 20 states were targeted and a few successfully accessed. At least publicly, it is uncertain as to whether data was changed in any way.