3 ms·
I don't know how you could even get that idea. Upholding the law is significantly more important than saving some company, even if it's a large bank. If you'r
by chmod775 8y ago
I don't know how you could even get that idea.
Upholding the law is significantly more important than saving
some company, even if it's a large bank.
If you're going to throw law and order out of the window over saving some shitty banks, then you already have a bigger problem than disagreeable numbers on balance sheets.
- benj111 8y agoIt isn't about saving the company, or its share holders. It's about saving all the savings of other depositors, about preventing a run on that, and other banks, about trying to maintain the banking system. Banking laws are meant to maintain stability. If they get in the way of that, they should at least be re examined.
- chmod775 8y ago"Re-examining" and changing laws is different from not punishing criminals and law-breaking corporations. You can change the law later as much as you like. The point is upholding it in the first place and not adding subjective measures like "but it's not a good law!" into the equation when you determine guilt and fines. Even if you immediately repeal or change the law, you still have to punish those that broke it.
- benj111 8y agoWere the last people to illegally practice homosexuality in your country punished? It is societies choice to decide whether to enforce a law. I meant 're-examine' very broadly. And the 2 examples I've given so far in this thread have both involved the authorities.
- cinquemb 8y ago>Banking laws are meant to maintain stability. If they get in the way of that, they should at least be re examined. I hope one thinks this can be done ad infinitum to maintain stability…