3 ms·

Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. The cost of doing business this way must go up, way up, so that these critical institut

Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. The cost of doing business this way must go up, way up, so that these critical institutions are legally transparent* and motivated by a strong desire to avoid drastic haircuts. *for example, no more "the dog ate our homework" excuses.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. All fines are subject to court supervision. This sentence makes no sense. > cost of doing business this way must go up, way up We want regulators thinking of the public, not randomly increasing the cost of business. This seems more motivated by hatred for a thriving industry than claims to specific damages. Regulators who pursue this path are rightfully overturned by courts for acting capriciously.
- gmd63 3y ago
  Regulators are not thinking of the public when they allow corporate sociopaths to neglect societal best interest while market fixing / mismanaging records / etc., activities that have demonstrably siphoned wealth from the lower class and moved it increasingly to the ivory towers of companies that do not deserve the influence that makes them "too big to fail". The wealth inequality gap is widening and it's due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime and strategic negligence.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > wealth inequality gap is widening You can’t fine a business just to reduce inequality. Any jurisdiction that starts ruling that way fails basic definitions for rule of law. (This is in part what ruined Argentina.) Also, in what universe would larger fines for banks decrease income inequality? The history of enforcement is capricious penalties increase incentives for cover-ups. If a record retention mistake means personal bankruptcy, you have zero incentive to correct mistakes. In practice, this leads to corruption among regulators, who are now the de facto commanders of private business. > due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime Where is the crime here? The SEC investigated and found no wilful wrongdoing. Those twelve private plaintiffs are going to win judgements, as will everyone else who brings claims which could reasonably by covered by the missing records.
    - gmd63 3y ago
      The crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined. Once a corporate entity is operating at a sufficient scale, it does not matter if the people inside willingly mess up. The organization is required to be run properly. The problem is that slaps on the wrist for failure do not suffice as environmental stressors for corporate evolution. As for what we can do, the possibilities are endless. We shape society however we like, and that is the highest form of art humans engage in.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined The SEC is a civil agency. No crimes. > organization is required to be run properly It’s that easy? Just require good organization and you’ll get it by diktat? This entire thread seems to require a reading of Argentinian and modern Egyptian and Russian economic history.
        gmd63 3y ago
        Evidently you don't get well run organizations by simply having legislation, which is my point. We do not enforce that legislation appropriately. I'm confused by your point regarding the SEC, how are they allowed to fine a company without legal basis? If my use of the word "crime" means something different to you, I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you don't get well run organizations by simply having legislation, which is my point Nobody argued as much. > I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law This isn’t what “crime” means. Painting your house the wrong colour may be against code, but it isn’t a crime. Legally, the difference is starker, as nobody was shown to have done anything wrong here beyond the benefit of doubt.
        gmd63 3y ago

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> Don't get stuck on the word "fine'. The fines cans be judgment at court. All fines are subject to court supervision. This sentence makes no sense. > cost of doing business this way must go up, way up We want regulators thinking of the public, not randomly increasing the cost of business. This seems more motivated by hatred for a thriving industry than claims to specific damages. Regulators who pursue this path are rightfully overturned by courts for acting capriciously.

gmd63 3y ago
Regulators are not thinking of the public when they allow corporate sociopaths to neglect societal best interest while market fixing / mismanaging records / etc., activities that have demonstrably siphoned wealth from the lower class and moved it increasingly to the ivory towers of companies that do not deserve the influence that makes them "too big to fail". The wealth inequality gap is widening and it's due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime and strategic negligence.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > wealth inequality gap is widening You can’t fine a business just to reduce inequality. Any jurisdiction that starts ruling that way fails basic definitions for rule of law. (This is in part what ruined Argentina.) Also, in what universe would larger fines for banks decrease income inequality? The history of enforcement is capricious penalties increase incentives for cover-ups. If a record retention mistake means personal bankruptcy, you have zero incentive to correct mistakes. In practice, this leads to corruption among regulators, who are now the de facto commanders of private business. > due to pussyfooted enforcement on white collar crime Where is the crime here? The SEC investigated and found no wilful wrongdoing. Those twelve private plaintiffs are going to win judgements, as will everyone else who brings claims which could reasonably by covered by the missing records.
  - gmd63 3y ago
    The crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined. Once a corporate entity is operating at a sufficient scale, it does not matter if the people inside willingly mess up. The organization is required to be run properly. The problem is that slaps on the wrist for failure do not suffice as environmental stressors for corporate evolution. As for what we can do, the possibilities are endless. We shape society however we like, and that is the highest form of art humans engage in.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > crime was identified, which is why JP Morgan was fined The SEC is a civil agency. No crimes. > organization is required to be run properly It’s that easy? Just require good organization and you’ll get it by diktat? This entire thread seems to require a reading of Argentinian and modern Egyptian and Russian economic history.
      - gmd63 3y ago
        Evidently you don't get well run organizations by simply having legislation, which is my point. We do not enforce that legislation appropriately. I'm confused by your point regarding the SEC, how are they allowed to fine a company without legal basis? If my use of the word "crime" means something different to you, I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > you don't get well run organizations by simply having legislation, which is my point Nobody argued as much. > I mean "crime" as anything that breaks the law This isn’t what “crime” means. Painting your house the wrong colour may be against code, but it isn’t a crime. Legally, the difference is starker, as nobody was shown to have done anything wrong here beyond the benefit of doubt.
        gmd63 3y ago