3 ms·

Indeed. I suppose it's the broader point that concerns me, and that I was really focused - the fact is that the tanking of the economy based on fraud and negli

Indeed. I suppose it's the broader point that concerns me, and that I was really focused - the fact is that the tanking of the economy based on fraud and negligence resulted in no jailtime. I feel, and folks may think I'm wrong in this, that this is very visible to ordinary men and women in America and has a corrosive effect on the nation and its body politic.

_delirium 14y ago
I understand the sentiment, but I'm personally skeptical that jailtime in particular is the solution. I also have the same instinctive reaction to "we jail people for X, but not [worse Y]?!", but I think in many of those cases, when I think about it more, I'd rather jail fewer people to equalize that, rather than more. And when it comes to tanking the economy, I'd like to figure out how it happened and put systemic reforms in place, more than I really want specific heads to roll. There are some well-run countries that don't tolerate corruption that don't jail people very often— they just see to it that anyone corrupt is shown the door. If you can do that consistently, it hardly matters if you show them the door into jail or a quiet retirement. I.e. keeping a hold on the situation directly, rather than trying to deter malfeasance with jail time.
- richardjordan 14y ago
  My instinct is to reduce people in jail too. The land of the free shouldn't be so dramatically worse in terms of incarceration rates than ALL other countries in the world. That's messed up. That being said there are zero consequences of impact to disincentivize widespread corruption and illegality in the financial sector, and that is the biggest systematic failing. So long as you can make $100MM screwing people over, then retire with it all when you get caught, and effectively zero chance of any sanction even if your actions were criminal, people will take that bet every time.
rayiner 14y ago
It's because every single person was in on it. I'm not one of those people who lays the blame at the feet of low income people buying homes, but everyone enjoyed the benefits of mortgage securitization, low-interest HELOCs, adjustable rate mortgages, etc.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Also because when you send high-level executives of major financial firms to prison, you risk creating run-on-the-bank scenarios that harm more people than the prosecution could possibly help. That this TOTALLY SUCKS does not change the actual facts on the ground, which the DOJ and the President have to evaluate and judge before acting on.

_delirium 14y ago

I understand the sentiment, but I'm personally skeptical that jailtime in particular is the solution. I also have the same instinctive reaction to "we jail people for X, but not [worse Y]?!", but I think in many of those cases, when I think about it more, I'd rather jail fewer people to equalize that, rather than more. And when it comes to tanking the economy, I'd like to figure out how it happened and put systemic reforms in place, more than I really want specific heads to roll. There are some well-run countries that don't tolerate corruption that don't jail people very often— they just see to it that anyone corrupt is shown the door. If you can do that consistently, it hardly matters if you show them the door into jail or a quiet retirement. I.e. keeping a hold on the situation directly, rather than trying to deter malfeasance with jail time.

richardjordan 14y ago
My instinct is to reduce people in jail too. The land of the free shouldn't be so dramatically worse in terms of incarceration rates than ALL other countries in the world. That's messed up. That being said there are zero consequences of impact to disincentivize widespread corruption and illegality in the financial sector, and that is the biggest systematic failing. So long as you can make $100MM screwing people over, then retire with it all when you get caught, and effectively zero chance of any sanction even if your actions were criminal, people will take that bet every time.

rayiner 14y ago

It's because every single person was in on it. I'm not one of those people who lays the blame at the feet of low income people buying homes, but everyone enjoyed the benefits of mortgage securitization, low-interest HELOCs, adjustable rate mortgages, etc.

tptacek 14y ago
Also because when you send high-level executives of major financial firms to prison, you risk creating run-on-the-bank scenarios that harm more people than the prosecution could possibly help. That this TOTALLY SUCKS does not change the actual facts on the ground, which the DOJ and the President have to evaluate and judge before acting on.