7 ms·

So as per the article "JPMS further admitted that these failures were firm-wide and that practices were not hidden within the firm". This is a failure that goes

So as per the article "JPMS further admitted that these failures were firm-wide and that practices were not hidden within the firm". This is a failure that goes all the way to the top. Yet no one in leadership is held accountable? Can individuals not be charged for knowingly enabling this?

p0wn 5y ago
We're not living in a democracy. We're living in an oligarchy. Of course those at the top won't get punished. That class never gets punished. Who else is gonna fund all those old decrepit bickerers in Washington?
- CoastalCoder 5y ago
  If we're being serious, I'd say we're living in a hybrid system with competing sources of power: oligarchy, indirect democracy, direct democracy, guild system, etc.
  - tigerlily 5y ago
    Sounds much like a plutocracy.
  - emodendroket 5y ago
    I agree, though the relative strength of these factions seems different from a few decades ago.
    - triactual 5y ago
      So oligarchy-dominant?
      - datavirtue 5y ago
        I saw a documentary on Putin's rise to power that included (others do not) coverage of how the oligarchs in Russia (seven of them) basically set or determined how Putin would govern. They wanted a democracy friendly to their interests (capitalism) as the post-Yelstin era was beginning. It was quite revealing how Putin was subject to them and it reminded me a lot of America and our leaders and how they cowar to business leaders (and Trump's association with Russians). They agreed to stay out of politics if Putin stayed out of commerce. The oligarchs then divided up various industries among themselves. In the end, it left the impression on me that Putin is just a player or a puppet who owes a lot of people.
  - jimmyearlcarter 5y ago
    I think thats fair. I mean we live in a system of systems, and there are various forms of organization at each and every level. However, if we're being serious, the most important systems (health care, military, mass media, telecom,...) that effect each and every one of us are obviously oligarchic, formed in part by massive authoritarian constructs (modern corporations).
  - meheleventyone 5y ago
    To be fair you can describe most governments that way, even the totalitarian. It’s always a mix but the interesting question is the current distribution which is what I believe the OP was trying to voice.
- bush-bby 5y ago
  Please don’t take this personally, but fuck I hate this painfully common assertion. We most absolutely live in a democracy. However sometimes it’s easy to get confused as to what that means. Democrats (as opposed to autocrats or oligarchs) must behave in ways that will get them the votes they need to stay in power. Is there anyone in particular enabling this? No. If there was, they either would not get re-elected, or constituents have decided that this is not enough a transgression to vote for someone else. Maybe a case could be made for lack of knowledge or high ignorance amongst the common voter contributing to poor outcome of democratic processes, but to say we don’t have a democracy is irrational. No one forces you to vote for anyone. You don’t like someone in power? Get rid of them! You can do that here…but unfortunately one of the benefits of democracy, is you need a group to enact change and policy, not an autocratic individual.
  - Guest42 5y ago
    By singling out Democrats, are you claiming that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson haven’t influenced the government in ways that are beyond the scope of what citizens should be capable of?
    - TchoBeer 5y ago
      GP didn't mean Democrats as in the party, but rather Democrats as in the people in charge under a democracy, i.e. Democrats as opposed to Oligarchs
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      They mean "democrat" as the people who practice democracy, not the US political party
    - KiranRao0 5y ago
      While I can't be sure, I believe the commenter is referring to "democrats" (an actor in a democratic government) and not "Democrats" (actors within a political party in the US). Correct me if I'm wrong.
    - nlittlepoole 5y ago
xwolfi 5y ago
Chances are, the people you're thinking of, the very top, may very well have proof in writing they require employees not to talk abt the business on whatsapp. I work in the same kind of company and Im baffled, I wouldnt dare say the name of a client on whatsapp and sometimes the regulated chat system is so inconvenient I have to use some personal device but we usually do it to "ping" people so they then go to the recorded system. And that they seem to have used it for decision taking, not just random discussion at the bar, means every low level employee who ever gave a formal report or raised a formal question without resending by email is wrong. Every.low.level.employee, yes. Burn the top all you want, but at this point maybe the SEC should directly go to our companies fucking explain people that we must record all steps in decision making, not just for discovering fraud but to protect ourselves and our clients from suspicion in the first place. Shocked that it happened at JPM. The SEC is also wrong to say: "Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures "!! No, EVEYONE is responsible, from the dimwit intern making coffee to the ferrari driving MD, record keeping is bank 101, this makes me boil for some reason. I d be such a pain in the ass of a big boss if I saw that where I work.
- marcellus23 5y ago
  > Chances are, the people you're thinking of, the very top, may very well have proof in writing they require employees not to talk abt the business on whatsapp. So because the bosses have a rule written down somewhere, that absolves them of the responsibility to make sure their employees are actually following it?
- Talanes 5y ago
  > The SEC is also wrong to say: "Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures "!! No, EVEYONE is responsible, And you were born knowing this, or did someone have to model the proper behavior for you first?
  - xwolfi 5y ago
nus07 5y ago
What are the odds that the profits from these recordkeeping failures exceeded $125M? If you did this as an individual you would be in prison. As a corporation like JPMorgan a fine as a slap on the wrist.
- datavirtue 5y ago
  Yeah, they'll just pay it and head to the Christmas party. Quick email to someone in accounting to do a wire transfer.
  - oneoff786 5y ago
    Hey at least it wasn’t a WhatsApp. Progress, see?

p0wn 5y ago

We're not living in a democracy. We're living in an oligarchy. Of course those at the top won't get punished. That class never gets punished. Who else is gonna fund all those old decrepit bickerers in Washington?

CoastalCoder 5y ago
If we're being serious, I'd say we're living in a hybrid system with competing sources of power: oligarchy, indirect democracy, direct democracy, guild system, etc.
- tigerlily 5y ago
  Sounds much like a plutocracy.
- emodendroket 5y ago
  I agree, though the relative strength of these factions seems different from a few decades ago.
  - triactual 5y ago
    So oligarchy-dominant?
    - datavirtue 5y ago
      I saw a documentary on Putin's rise to power that included (others do not) coverage of how the oligarchs in Russia (seven of them) basically set or determined how Putin would govern. They wanted a democracy friendly to their interests (capitalism) as the post-Yelstin era was beginning. It was quite revealing how Putin was subject to them and it reminded me a lot of America and our leaders and how they cowar to business leaders (and Trump's association with Russians). They agreed to stay out of politics if Putin stayed out of commerce. The oligarchs then divided up various industries among themselves. In the end, it left the impression on me that Putin is just a player or a puppet who owes a lot of people.
- jimmyearlcarter 5y ago
  I think thats fair. I mean we live in a system of systems, and there are various forms of organization at each and every level. However, if we're being serious, the most important systems (health care, military, mass media, telecom,...) that effect each and every one of us are obviously oligarchic, formed in part by massive authoritarian constructs (modern corporations).
- meheleventyone 5y ago
  To be fair you can describe most governments that way, even the totalitarian. It’s always a mix but the interesting question is the current distribution which is what I believe the OP was trying to voice.
bush-bby 5y ago
Please don’t take this personally, but fuck I hate this painfully common assertion. We most absolutely live in a democracy. However sometimes it’s easy to get confused as to what that means. Democrats (as opposed to autocrats or oligarchs) must behave in ways that will get them the votes they need to stay in power. Is there anyone in particular enabling this? No. If there was, they either would not get re-elected, or constituents have decided that this is not enough a transgression to vote for someone else. Maybe a case could be made for lack of knowledge or high ignorance amongst the common voter contributing to poor outcome of democratic processes, but to say we don’t have a democracy is irrational. No one forces you to vote for anyone. You don’t like someone in power? Get rid of them! You can do that here…but unfortunately one of the benefits of democracy, is you need a group to enact change and policy, not an autocratic individual.
- Guest42 5y ago
  By singling out Democrats, are you claiming that the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson haven’t influenced the government in ways that are beyond the scope of what citizens should be capable of?
  - TchoBeer 5y ago
    GP didn't mean Democrats as in the party, but rather Democrats as in the people in charge under a democracy, i.e. Democrats as opposed to Oligarchs
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    They mean "democrat" as the people who practice democracy, not the US political party
  - KiranRao0 5y ago
    While I can't be sure, I believe the commenter is referring to "democrats" (an actor in a democratic government) and not "Democrats" (actors within a political party in the US). Correct me if I'm wrong.
  - nlittlepoole 5y ago

xwolfi 5y ago

Chances are, the people you're thinking of, the very top, may very well have proof in writing they require employees not to talk abt the business on whatsapp. I work in the same kind of company and Im baffled, I wouldnt dare say the name of a client on whatsapp and sometimes the regulated chat system is so inconvenient I have to use some personal device but we usually do it to "ping" people so they then go to the recorded system. And that they seem to have used it for decision taking, not just random discussion at the bar, means every low level employee who ever gave a formal report or raised a formal question without resending by email is wrong. Every.low.level.employee, yes. Burn the top all you want, but at this point maybe the SEC should directly go to our companies fucking explain people that we must record all steps in decision making, not just for discovering fraud but to protect ourselves and our clients from suspicion in the first place. Shocked that it happened at JPM. The SEC is also wrong to say: "Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures "!! No, EVEYONE is responsible, from the dimwit intern making coffee to the ferrari driving MD, record keeping is bank 101, this makes me boil for some reason. I d be such a pain in the ass of a big boss if I saw that where I work.

marcellus23 5y ago
> Chances are, the people you're thinking of, the very top, may very well have proof in writing they require employees not to talk abt the business on whatsapp. So because the bosses have a rule written down somewhere, that absolves them of the responsibility to make sure their employees are actually following it?
Talanes 5y ago
> The SEC is also wrong to say: "Indeed, supervisors, including managing directors and other senior supervisors – the very people responsible for implementing and ensuring compliance with JPMS’s policies and procedures "!! No, EVEYONE is responsible, And you were born knowing this, or did someone have to model the proper behavior for you first?
- xwolfi 5y ago

nus07 5y ago

What are the odds that the profits from these recordkeeping failures exceeded $125M? If you did this as an individual you would be in prison. As a corporation like JPMorgan a fine as a slap on the wrist.

datavirtue 5y ago
Yeah, they'll just pay it and head to the Christmas party. Quick email to someone in accounting to do a wire transfer.
- oneoff786 5y ago
  Hey at least it wasn’t a WhatsApp. Progress, see?