9 ms·

This is fucking ridiculous. Scandal after scandal. How long are we going to put up with this? In America, the political climate disgusts me. When it comes to t

This is fucking ridiculous. Scandal after scandal. How long are we going to put up with this? In America, the political climate disgusts me. When it comes to the poor and the front-line workers, we're all about the strictest forms of accountability. Drug tests for basic aid. Punitive oversight of educators. But our richest, most powerful institutions are robbing us blind on the regular and getting away with it.

jdimov 12y ago
Do you really think your life will be better if they stop doing things like that?
- Retric 12y ago
  Well, I would have more money. I don't know if that's enough to have a better life but I don't think robbing someone and then saying you’re going to be happier without needing to clean that junk is a reasonable defense.
  - jdimov 12y ago
    No, you would not. You'll have more money when you become financially literate. Until then, no amount of "justice" is going to put more money in your pocket.
    - Retric 12y ago
      Where do you think the billions in profits from from manipulations like this come from? In this specific case it's hard to quantify but my personal losses are easily more than 10$ which is not exactly meaningless fractions of a cent.
- chrisan 12y ago
  Do you really think, if the accusations are true, fixing this problem wouldn't improve things?
  - jdimov 12y ago
    Yes, I do. In fact, it won't change a damn thing in the daily lives of anyone you know. You have to deal with YOUR problems, not wait for someone (e.g. government) to correct someone else's behaviour (the big boys) so you can feel better. Downvote and whine all you want - your poverty is your problem. There is nothing wrong with the world.
    - synkarius 12y ago
      What problems qualify as "my" problems versus someone else's problems? Also, if there is nothing wrong with the world, why are you defending your opinion here? Doesn't doing so imply that you perceive opposing opinions as flawed or inaccurate enough to be worth debating? If so, whose problem is that?
    - datashovel 12y ago
      Corruption, and the sense of entitlement it gives powerful people when they can get away with it, certainly does (in the long term) make a difference to every person on the planet when it is kept under control.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - kubiiii 12y ago
      Technically, manipulating commodities prices to build higher profits will drive prices up for consumers making them poorer.
    - LunaSea 12y ago
      Wow, a new level of sociopathy has been reached here.
    - juliangregorian 12y ago
      Mmhmm, tell me, where can I sign up for your newsletter?
    - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
- sspiff 12y ago
  It's not even about fixing this one issue. Or improving my life. It's about enforcing fairness, and not continuing to signal to the rich and powerful that really, they can get away with anything. That their wealth and power doesn't place them above the law. And I believe that in the end, when abuses like this start getting punished in a meaningful way, and moves are made to prevent further abuse, all our lives WILL actually improve.
  - tim333 12y ago
    Yeah, we could do with a few of the guilty doing time. The JP Morgan folks would be a start - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8572126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8572126
  - AndrewKemendo 12y ago
    That their wealth and power doesn't place them above the law. Except it always has and I don't see why that would change as long as there is scarcity in some form. What it comes down to is cost/benefit of enforcing "fairness" or "equity." If someone has a lot of resources and they are using them to employ people or otherwise keep institutions that people rely on running - even if they are in the long term toxic institutions - there is momentum to not disturb that system in order to shield the people downstream from layoffs and disorder etc... This is actually our democratic system in action, where the lawmakers and enforcers are put in place by voters, who respond to jobs, social investment and stability in their regions. Even if the people who are the mechanisms for those benefits are assholes and crooks, on par as long as there is relative stability and growth it is better to keep their actions from disrupting the ecosystem. Arguably it will eventually be too corrupt to stand and crumble, but if the way that capital and goods are allocated is through a private consumer-producer mechanism with state power applied to maintain or promote this system, this is the inevitable result. In the end, the majority of people aren't so dedicated to the value of fairness/equality that they are willing to risk their livelihoods on it.
    - sspiff 12y ago
      I agree with your statement that wealth and power has always made men who hold them untouchable to anyone but the people with more wealth and power. That shouldn't mean we need to accept this. We can try new solutions, move the status quo. We probably won't succeed, but at least we have to try?
higherpurpose 12y ago
Maybe this time they'll fine them at least 10 weeks of profits!
- pfortuny 12y ago
  Possibly 10 weeks of interests on the profits (of those 10 weeks). I am a bit pessimistic.
HannibalLecter 12y ago
I suggest we prepare a giant banquet for the poor. (you will read this in my voice.)
jrcii 12y ago
Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk.
- Igglyboo 12y ago
  Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when you have enough to get by? Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.
  - josho 12y ago
    A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
    - kasey_junk 12y ago
      I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cryoshon 12y ago
This fresh scandal isn't even being reported on in most of the MSM. Even if it was, it is hard for people to connect the abstraction of a banking scandal with the economic problems they face. I don't see a way out of this through any of the legitimate channels.
maxxxxx 12y ago
As long as working for a bank is the number 1 way for ex-politicians and regulators to make a few million quickly nothing will happen.
- josho 12y ago
  This is how the Regulatory Capture has come to be. None of those out protecting consumers from the finance industry are doing what really needs to be done, because they know that their next job is likely to be at one of the institutions they are investigating. I believe it was This American Life that recently did a podcast that went into depth on this issue.
  - maxxxxx 12y ago
    And you can't blame them. Look at this guy: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/peter-orszag-citigroup-omb-money-104525.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/peter-orszag-citigroup... He went from making probably around 200k (my guess) to 3 million+. I would probably sell out for that money too. The pay differential between banks and the rest is just too much.
    - jMyles 12y ago
      > I would probably sell out for that money too. It's good of you to admit that, but I have to ask: why? Why is 3 million so different from 200k as to be worth being willing to set aside ethics / become antisocial?
      - maxxxxx 12y ago
        Two reasons: - Do this for one or two years and you are pretty much set for life. That's pretty tempting - I don't think the bankers think of themselves as antisocial or non-ethical.
        wcummings 12y ago
        If you're making 200k a year and manage your finances well you could retire pretty early, anyway.
duaneb 12y ago
Simply put, we prioritize economic health above justice. American citizens, as a population, literally love money above all else.... All the people in existing contracts need to do to justify continuing is raise a fear of economic instability as power changes hands. All of a sudden, the rich are literally "too large to fail" as they ARE the goddamn economy. Only the poor can afford to go bankrupt, according to our government. Our government literally makes a mockery of justice out of attempting to prop up our economy.
r00fus 12y ago
What I find amusing is how anti-tax activists are generally unconcerned with this kind of behavior which acts in-effect like an "invisible hand" tax on the entire metals market.

jdimov 12y ago

Do you really think your life will be better if they stop doing things like that?

Retric 12y ago
Well, I would have more money. I don't know if that's enough to have a better life but I don't think robbing someone and then saying you’re going to be happier without needing to clean that junk is a reasonable defense.
- jdimov 12y ago
  No, you would not. You'll have more money when you become financially literate. Until then, no amount of "justice" is going to put more money in your pocket.
  - Retric 12y ago
    Where do you think the billions in profits from from manipulations like this come from? In this specific case it's hard to quantify but my personal losses are easily more than 10$ which is not exactly meaningless fractions of a cent.
chrisan 12y ago
Do you really think, if the accusations are true, fixing this problem wouldn't improve things?
- jdimov 12y ago
  Yes, I do. In fact, it won't change a damn thing in the daily lives of anyone you know. You have to deal with YOUR problems, not wait for someone (e.g. government) to correct someone else's behaviour (the big boys) so you can feel better. Downvote and whine all you want - your poverty is your problem. There is nothing wrong with the world.
  - synkarius 12y ago
    What problems qualify as "my" problems versus someone else's problems? Also, if there is nothing wrong with the world, why are you defending your opinion here? Doesn't doing so imply that you perceive opposing opinions as flawed or inaccurate enough to be worth debating? If so, whose problem is that?
  - datashovel 12y ago
    Corruption, and the sense of entitlement it gives powerful people when they can get away with it, certainly does (in the long term) make a difference to every person on the planet when it is kept under control.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - kubiiii 12y ago
    Technically, manipulating commodities prices to build higher profits will drive prices up for consumers making them poorer.
  - LunaSea 12y ago
    Wow, a new level of sociopathy has been reached here.
  - juliangregorian 12y ago
    Mmhmm, tell me, where can I sign up for your newsletter?
  - GotAnyMegadeth 12y ago
sspiff 12y ago
It's not even about fixing this one issue. Or improving my life. It's about enforcing fairness, and not continuing to signal to the rich and powerful that really, they can get away with anything. That their wealth and power doesn't place them above the law. And I believe that in the end, when abuses like this start getting punished in a meaningful way, and moves are made to prevent further abuse, all our lives WILL actually improve.
- tim333 12y ago
  Yeah, we could do with a few of the guilty doing time. The JP Morgan folks would be a start - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8572126 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8572126
- AndrewKemendo 12y ago
  That their wealth and power doesn't place them above the law. Except it always has and I don't see why that would change as long as there is scarcity in some form. What it comes down to is cost/benefit of enforcing "fairness" or "equity." If someone has a lot of resources and they are using them to employ people or otherwise keep institutions that people rely on running - even if they are in the long term toxic institutions - there is momentum to not disturb that system in order to shield the people downstream from layoffs and disorder etc... This is actually our democratic system in action, where the lawmakers and enforcers are put in place by voters, who respond to jobs, social investment and stability in their regions. Even if the people who are the mechanisms for those benefits are assholes and crooks, on par as long as there is relative stability and growth it is better to keep their actions from disrupting the ecosystem. Arguably it will eventually be too corrupt to stand and crumble, but if the way that capital and goods are allocated is through a private consumer-producer mechanism with state power applied to maintain or promote this system, this is the inevitable result. In the end, the majority of people aren't so dedicated to the value of fairness/equality that they are willing to risk their livelihoods on it.
  - sspiff 12y ago
    I agree with your statement that wealth and power has always made men who hold them untouchable to anyone but the people with more wealth and power. That shouldn't mean we need to accept this. We can try new solutions, move the status quo. We probably won't succeed, but at least we have to try?

higherpurpose 12y ago

Maybe this time they'll fine them at least 10 weeks of profits!

pfortuny 12y ago
Possibly 10 weeks of interests on the profits (of those 10 weeks). I am a bit pessimistic.

HannibalLecter 12y ago

I suggest we prepare a giant banquet for the poor. (you will read this in my voice.)

jrcii 12y ago

Since ancient history the rich have gotten away with doing as they please, and they always will. The real culprit is democracy's false promise that it can do anything to change this. Ultimately the masses will only take action if food or shelter is at risk.

Igglyboo 12y ago
Yep, inequality sucks in the US but it's still one of the best places to live in the world. Why risk your middle class lifestyle by rioting and protesting when you have enough to get by? Until we become a despot I don't see things changing very much.
- josho 12y ago
  A 2014 UN study on the happiest populations* doesn't even include the US in the top 10 (it scored #17). All of the countries in the list have some form of a mixed economy (ie. not full on socialism, but a much stronger social support system in place than the US). So, there isn't even that much experimentation required to get a better system in the US. Rather, I'd say American's have thoroughly been indoctrinated against social support constructs that you only have yourselves to blame (you only need to look at how underfunded the public school systems, police, college are). *http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-visit/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/20/travel/happiest-countries-to-v...
  - kasey_junk 12y ago
    I'm not arguing against the idea of mixed economies, but I don't find the argument that a bunch of countries produce happy citizens and the same countries have mixed economies very compelling. For instance, you don't mention the inverse. How do mixed economies due on the unhappiness scale? Is there some bare standard of mixed economy (for instance the US does have a mixed economy with a social support system at many levels)? Is there something else that is more related than their economic model for happiness? I personally look at that data set and find it telling that those are all small countries by population size, wealthy and have lots of mineral resources per capita. For instance, are people in Iceland more happy than people in Corpus Cristi, Tx (which gets routinely rated as a happy US city and is bigger than Iceland).

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

cryoshon 12y ago

This fresh scandal isn't even being reported on in most of the MSM. Even if it was, it is hard for people to connect the abstraction of a banking scandal with the economic problems they face. I don't see a way out of this through any of the legitimate channels.

maxxxxx 12y ago

As long as working for a bank is the number 1 way for ex-politicians and regulators to make a few million quickly nothing will happen.

josho 12y ago
This is how the Regulatory Capture has come to be. None of those out protecting consumers from the finance industry are doing what really needs to be done, because they know that their next job is likely to be at one of the institutions they are investigating. I believe it was This American Life that recently did a podcast that went into depth on this issue.
- maxxxxx 12y ago
  And you can't blame them. Look at this guy: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/peter-orszag-citigroup-omb-money-104525.html http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/peter-orszag-citigroup... He went from making probably around 200k (my guess) to 3 million+. I would probably sell out for that money too. The pay differential between banks and the rest is just too much.
  - jMyles 12y ago
    > I would probably sell out for that money too. It's good of you to admit that, but I have to ask: why? Why is 3 million so different from 200k as to be worth being willing to set aside ethics / become antisocial?
    - maxxxxx 12y ago
      Two reasons: - Do this for one or two years and you are pretty much set for life. That's pretty tempting - I don't think the bankers think of themselves as antisocial or non-ethical.
      - wcummings 12y ago
        If you're making 200k a year and manage your finances well you could retire pretty early, anyway.

duaneb 12y ago

Simply put, we prioritize economic health above justice. American citizens, as a population, literally love money above all else.... All the people in existing contracts need to do to justify continuing is raise a fear of economic instability as power changes hands. All of a sudden, the rich are literally "too large to fail" as they ARE the goddamn economy. Only the poor can afford to go bankrupt, according to our government. Our government literally makes a mockery of justice out of attempting to prop up our economy.

r00fus 12y ago

What I find amusing is how anti-tax activists are generally unconcerned with this kind of behavior which acts in-effect like an "invisible hand" tax on the entire metals market.