5 ms·

I would add the the SEC is a notoriously corrupt organization in that they need the banks help in order to understand what is going on AND people who work for t

by tpatke 15y ago

I would add the the SEC is a notoriously corrupt organization in that they need the banks help in order to understand what is going on AND people who work for the SEC tend to find their way into cushie bank jobs. The idea of giving them more power doesn't seem to me like any kind of solution at all. The real problem is that people just don't care enough about white collar crime. When someone mugs you for $5 you want vigilante justice, but when billions (trillions?) of dollars are on the line, we are happy to just shrug our shoulders.

dodo53 15y ago
Who said people were happy about it? I think there's a lot of anger at banks at the moment for perceived corruption. But there's a huge gap between voters caring and measures that are actually effective being put in place with lots of lobbying in between (and I have no idea what measures would be effective; and many people that do probably are also in a position to get a cushie job helping to avoid or lobby against those measures at a bank).
- tankenmate 15y ago
  Punitive damages on a geometric scale for repeat offences in a 10 year period? 3 times profit made plus any damages for first re-offence, 9 times for second re-offence. Sounds similar to training a child to go to sleep on their own...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - dodo53 15y ago
    I'm guessing the devil is in the detail (and I don't know much so I'll shut up shortly) - could companies set up shell legal entities to offend for them / shop around for a better jurisdiction to do dodgy deals in / is current law clear enough that serious penalties wouldn't end up having a chilling effect on all business (OP was implying that the current status is that if the SEC wants to, they can probably find some law you're breaking). Serious penalties would probably demand a lot of legal boilerplate to make absolutely sure 'good business' wasn't effected and the government doesn't have power to destroy politically inconvenient companies without due process; the more boilerplate, the more likely the more expensive lawyers at the banks will outwit the lawyers writing the laws. Add some (possibly sponsored) political rhetoric about regulations killing jobs in a recession and I think it gets very hard to actually nail it down.
adamc 15y ago
I think Occupy Wall Street demonstrates that many folks do care, and are quite upset about it. Finding something effective to do about it may be tougher.
- flyt 15y ago
  I think we all know that a drum circle solves most problems.
  - drumdance 15y ago
    Fox News stereotyping works. In last week's New Yorker there's an article about OWS and in particular how many people there hated the drum circles.
neutronicus 15y ago
I'd like to see the results of a survey where the only question was "Would you like to see very unpleasant vigilante justice perpetrated on the executive staff of banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?" I think you're underestimating the degree of bloodthirstiness. I sometimes wonder if Occupy Wall Street wouldn't play better with Middle America if they dropped the whole Gandhi-worship PR schtick (which Middle America seems, by and large, to despise rather than admire) and more openly advocated violence against investment bankers, specifically.
- anamax 15y ago
  > I think you're underestimating the degree of bloodthirstiness. I sometimes wonder if Occupy Wall Street wouldn't play better with Middle America if they dropped the whole Gandhi-worship PR schtick (which Middle America seems, by and large, to despise rather than admire) and more openly advocated violence against investment bankers, specifically. "Middle America" seems to know that it wasn't investment bankers that gave govt money to banks. And, they're reasonably receptive to the accounting that shows that financial TARP was break-even to modestly profitable. However, they're incensed about the bailouts that are costing money. For example, bailing out GM pensions isn't popular and largish govt worker pensions are even less popular. And then there are the Fannie and Freddie money-pits.
  - jbooth 15y ago
    I've gotta disagree on "what america's concerned about". When's the last time you heard someone who wasn't employed by fox news actually say anything about GM pensions?
    - anamax 15y ago
      > When's the last time you heard someone who wasn't employed by fox news actually say anything about GM pensions? I've heard actual humans say it. I didn't quiz them as to why. As to Fox, do you actually listen to/watch Fox or are you just guessing/getting it second hand? (I ask because several months ago, I watched enough to discover that most people who talk about what's on Fox get it wrong.)

by tpatke 15y ago

dodo53 15y ago

Who said people were happy about it? I think there's a lot of anger at banks at the moment for perceived corruption. But there's a huge gap between voters caring and measures that are actually effective being put in place with lots of lobbying in between (and I have no idea what measures would be effective; and many people that do probably are also in a position to get a cushie job helping to avoid or lobby against those measures at a bank).

tankenmate 15y ago
Punitive damages on a geometric scale for repeat offences in a 10 year period? 3 times profit made plus any damages for first re-offence, 9 times for second re-offence. Sounds similar to training a child to go to sleep on their own...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- dodo53 15y ago
  I'm guessing the devil is in the detail (and I don't know much so I'll shut up shortly) - could companies set up shell legal entities to offend for them / shop around for a better jurisdiction to do dodgy deals in / is current law clear enough that serious penalties wouldn't end up having a chilling effect on all business (OP was implying that the current status is that if the SEC wants to, they can probably find some law you're breaking). Serious penalties would probably demand a lot of legal boilerplate to make absolutely sure 'good business' wasn't effected and the government doesn't have power to destroy politically inconvenient companies without due process; the more boilerplate, the more likely the more expensive lawyers at the banks will outwit the lawyers writing the laws. Add some (possibly sponsored) political rhetoric about regulations killing jobs in a recession and I think it gets very hard to actually nail it down.

adamc 15y ago

I think Occupy Wall Street demonstrates that many folks do care, and are quite upset about it. Finding something effective to do about it may be tougher.

flyt 15y ago
I think we all know that a drum circle solves most problems.
- drumdance 15y ago
  Fox News stereotyping works. In last week's New Yorker there's an article about OWS and in particular how many people there hated the drum circles.

neutronicus 15y ago

I'd like to see the results of a survey where the only question was "Would you like to see very unpleasant vigilante justice perpetrated on the executive staff of banks involved in the subprime mortgage crisis of 2008?" I think you're underestimating the degree of bloodthirstiness. I sometimes wonder if Occupy Wall Street wouldn't play better with Middle America if they dropped the whole Gandhi-worship PR schtick (which Middle America seems, by and large, to despise rather than admire) and more openly advocated violence against investment bankers, specifically.

anamax 15y ago
> I think you're underestimating the degree of bloodthirstiness. I sometimes wonder if Occupy Wall Street wouldn't play better with Middle America if they dropped the whole Gandhi-worship PR schtick (which Middle America seems, by and large, to despise rather than admire) and more openly advocated violence against investment bankers, specifically. "Middle America" seems to know that it wasn't investment bankers that gave govt money to banks. And, they're reasonably receptive to the accounting that shows that financial TARP was break-even to modestly profitable. However, they're incensed about the bailouts that are costing money. For example, bailing out GM pensions isn't popular and largish govt worker pensions are even less popular. And then there are the Fannie and Freddie money-pits.
- jbooth 15y ago
  I've gotta disagree on "what america's concerned about". When's the last time you heard someone who wasn't employed by fox news actually say anything about GM pensions?
  - anamax 15y ago
    > When's the last time you heard someone who wasn't employed by fox news actually say anything about GM pensions? I've heard actual humans say it. I didn't quiz them as to why. As to Fox, do you actually listen to/watch Fox or are you just guessing/getting it second hand? (I ask because several months ago, I watched enough to discover that most people who talk about what's on Fox get it wrong.)