If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNBC)   US Congress proposes bill to jail bankers if they act stupidly and crash the economy. Whoops, did I say "US Congress"? I meant "UK Parliament"   (cnbc.com) divider line 42
    More: Interesting, HBOS  
•       •       •

897 clicks; posted to Business » on 27 Apr 2013 at 2:59 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-27 11:46:15 AM
Submitter should really read the farking article.



A new "reckless endangerment" law would be modelled on the US system, where executives can be prosecuted for putting public health or safety at risk through decisions taken at work.


I mean average Farkers shouldn't. It would be silly if they did.
 
2013-04-27 02:32:15 PM
we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.
 
2013-04-27 03:04:58 PM
Leave the job creators alone!
 
2013-04-27 03:09:27 PM

Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.


Jailing the guilty is one approach, I suppose. But do you really think they'll learn from years of imprisonment? No. The American method of cutting their quarterly bonus from $4 Million to $2 Million is what hits them where it counts.
 
2013-04-27 03:30:35 PM

Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.


We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.
 
2013-04-27 03:31:27 PM

Notabunny: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

Jailing the guilty is one approach, I suppose. But do you really think they'll learn from years of imprisonment? No. The American method of cutting their quarterly bonus from $4 Million to $2 Million is what hits them where it counts.


i'm pretty sure that if you go from making $4 million a year to making $3.26 an hour in the prison workshop well...that tends to grab one's attention.  we should also let banks fail, then loot the personal accounts of the CEO and board of directors to pay off investors.  turf your bank, you go bankrupt and THEN go to jail.
 
2013-04-27 03:36:40 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.


no, actually...we don't put bankers in jail.  even when the DO commit crimes, we just let 'em go.  or make them pay a fine using other people's money and they go right back to looting their customers.
 
2013-04-27 03:44:18 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Submitter should really read the farking article.

A new "reckless endangerment" law would be modelled on the US system, where executives can be prosecuted for putting public health or safety at risk through decisions taken at work.


I mean average Farkers shouldn't. It would be silly if they did.


Huh, I figured the article was about bank tellers playing with gasoline and matches at their tills.

/DNRTFA
 
2013-04-27 03:48:34 PM

Weaver95: Notabunny: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

Jailing the guilty is one approach, I suppose. But do you really think they'll learn from years of imprisonment? No. The American method of cutting their quarterly bonus from $4 Million to $2 Million is what hits them where it counts.

i'm pretty sure that if you go from making $4 million a year to making $3.26 an hour in the prison workshop well...that tends to grab one's attention.  we should also let banks fail, then loot the personal accounts of the CEO and board of directors to pay off investors.  turf your bank, you go bankrupt and THEN go to jail.


I don't know what country you live in, but in America corporations and the public work together as a team. It is the public's responsibility to pay for the research and development, to pay for the education and training, to pay for the infrastructure, to pay for the startup costs, to eliminate barriers such as clean air, clean water and, safe work environments, to pay for bailouts and cleanups, and to consume the products. It is the corporation's responsibility to make profits. In America, we socialize the risk and privatize the profit. That's teamwork.
 
2013-04-27 03:53:37 PM

Notabunny: . In America, we socialize the risk and privatize the profit. That's teamwork.


that worked out so well for fascist italy back in the 1930's.
 
2013-04-27 03:54:48 PM
Yeah, sure. The folks who set up in turn the Supine Financial Authority and the Serious Farce Office to regulate their markets is going to crack down on bankers.

Pull the other one.

(The SEC is seen in the UK as a model of strong-arm regulatory enforcement and model for Britain's efforts, in comparison to the SFA, SFO and whatever they're called this year.)
 
2013-04-27 04:05:36 PM

Weaver95: Notabunny: . In America, we socialize the risk and privatize the profit. That's teamwork.

that worked out so well for fascist italy back in the 1930's.


Rookies. We have it down. We've been perfecting the system since the late 1970s! Just look around: record corporate profits, hyper concentration at the top of wealth and power, and a near total lack of corporate accountability to the public. Oh sure, once every 5 or 10 years somebody will pay a token fee or fine. But everybody understands it's just for show. And everybody understands the American system of corporate/public teamwork will continue, unopposed.
 
2013-04-27 04:23:50 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Submitter should really read the farking article.

A new "reckless endangerment" law would be modelled on the US system, where executives can be prosecuted for putting public health or safety at risk through decisions taken at work.


I mean average Farkers shouldn't. It would be silly if they did.


And by prosecuted they mean given large bailouts where nobody goes to jail, and in the case of BP given a full public apology from a US congressman.
 
2013-04-27 04:27:31 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Submitter should really read the farking article.

A new "reckless endangerment" law would be modelled on the US system, where executives can be prosecuted for putting public health or safety at risk through decisions taken at work.


I mean average Farkers shouldn't. It would be silly if they did.


The US law is for public health or safety offences. The UK is proposing to use similar sanctions for economic offences. So what is your point?
 
2013-04-27 04:40:31 PM

Notabunny: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

Jailing the guilty is one approach, I suppose. But do you really think they'll learn from years of imprisonment? No. The American method of cutting their quarterly bonus from $4 Million to $2 Million is what hits them where it counts.


Putting them in a cell with someone who turned to a life of crime after losing their house and family works even better than that
 
2013-04-27 05:25:43 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.


No, we really don't. When American bankers break the law, we bring them in for a hearing in congress so that Republican lawmakers can spend a couple of hours coddling the banker's egos.  And then we just sit around looking at the mess they made and talking about how that proves that the government sucks and should be dismantled.
 
2013-04-27 05:46:49 PM
What about the morons who write the banking laws? Equal justice.
 
2013-04-27 06:22:52 PM
If I didn't believe that the US congress was on the farking payroll of mega-corporations (including megabanks), I might have believed their approach was true laissez faire, and congress was expecting us to mob the CEO's homes and drag them into the street for public beatings.

But  Citizens United lifted the veil on what has been going on for years.

Toss them all in a cell, like the thieves they are.

/What boiled my blood was when there was talks of cutting back salaries of bailout takers to 500k a year, and these greedy asses had the farking gall to say no way they could live on so little, when there are Americans that make less than a tenth of that and are living sorta well.
//That and farking contractual bonuses for FAILING, or leaving after effectively destroying a company.
///saw a comic years ago in Mad (late nineties) that showed the difference between a thief and a business man... it was all in the scale, and not a damned thing has changed.
 
2013-04-27 07:01:53 PM
Here's a better idea: have a regulator that does their job.

If you're going to underwrite banks losses, you should have a say about what crazy shiat they try to do.

Back in the old days, this was quite straightforward. The head of the Bank of England called up the head of the bank and asked him to pop in for a chat, where the head of the B of E would tell him to stop doing the crazy shiat they're doing. Now. All done rather informally and resulted in no bank runs and few bank collapses in 150 years. That''s all it took, because they knew that the B of E could stop underwriting them as a bad risk.

Then Gordon Brown comes along and in his wisdom creates the FSA which is responsible for regulating the banks, and they become a bureaucratic chocolate fireguard of procedures that allow you to do stupid shiat, as long as you fill the forms in in capital letters.
 
2013-04-27 07:45:56 PM
Notabunny [TotalFark]
          2013-04-27 03:09:27 PM


"Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.
Jailing the guilty is one approach, I suppose. But do you really think they'll learn from years of imprisonment? No. The American method of cutting their quarterly bonus from $4 Million to $2 Million is what hits them where it counts."

Why not use both jail (criminal) and fines (civil)?
 
2013-04-27 07:50:05 PM
Well since the people who own the federal reserve are british citizens, I wonder if they would imprison them for farking up USA's economy?
 
2013-04-27 09:51:34 PM

Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.


But, what do you do when the banks are pressured into squandering other people's money by the government?
 
2013-04-27 09:55:07 PM

DrPainMD: But, what do you do when the banks are pressured into squandering other people's money by the government?


Wake up and realize that's not what the CRA did in any way, shape, or form.
 
2013-04-27 10:48:52 PM
The way it works in the US:
Step 1 -- Congress threatens banks
Step 2 -- Banks flood Congress with campaign cash
Step 3 -- Profit
 
2013-04-27 11:02:13 PM
Back in the olden days, banks had to have a ton of equity from their owners, and they lost it if the bank went belly up. They also had to have large reserves. How about we go back to that system rather than passing more laws and regs that amount to sweeping up the rubble after a poorly-capitalized or over-leveraged bank fails?
 
2013-04-27 11:05:14 PM

Debeo Summa Credo: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.


We don't.   People should have been jailed for life over the Libor scandal (which, as the wikipedia article puts it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets", yet the worst that happened was a few slap-on-the-wrist company fines. Eric Holder has actually said that it's dangerous to prosecute anyone because it could lead to "collateral consequences"  - apparently the world's economy would somehow collapse if we put bankers in jail for stealing from us.
 
2013-04-28 12:07:17 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: But, what do you do when the banks are pressured into squandering other people's money by the government?

Wake up and realize that's not what the CRA did in any way, shape, or form.


Keep your head buried in the sand. I'd expect nothing less. Ignore the government's own rules and regulations (dozens of them, in addition to the CRA); ignore the FED's demanding that banks give no-down, low interest loans to poor people; ignore Fannie/Freddie's policies of buying/guaranteeing bad loans; ignore the politicians' promises to make home ownership affordable for everybody; ignore the banks and their lobbyists fighting it every step of the way; ignore all of it, even tho they put every bit of it in writing.
 
2013-04-28 12:14:50 AM
DrPainMD:

We're ignoring it because it isn't true. You're just making shiat up to smear political rivals.
 
2013-04-28 12:15:12 AM

Debeo Summa Credo: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.


Yeah, there is plenty of evidence of fraud in our crash.  Nobody is doing anything about it.  Good lord you are a real good slave, aren't you?
 
2013-04-28 12:19:28 AM

DrPainMD: Sergeant Grumbles: DrPainMD: But, what do you do when the banks are pressured into squandering other people's money by the government?

Wake up and realize that's not what the CRA did in any way, shape, or form.

Keep your head buried in the sand. I'd expect nothing less. Ignore the government's own rules and regulations (dozens of them, in addition to the CRA); ignore the FED's demanding that banks give no-down, low interest loans to poor people; ignore Fannie/Freddie's policies of buying/guaranteeing bad loans; ignore the politicians' promises to make home ownership affordable for everybody; ignore the banks and their lobbyists fighting it every step of the way; ignore all of it, even tho they put every bit of it in writing.


The CRA had nothing to do with the 2007 collapse.  There is not a piece of documentation, mathematics, or legislation that you can produce that connects the CRA to what happened.  Stop, just stop, because you are either completely and utterly ignorant of what the CRA did and what caused the collapse, or you are a liar and a partisan shill.  Those are the only two possibilities in this case.
 
2013-04-28 01:24:06 AM

iaazathot: The CRA had nothing to do with the 2007 collapse. There is not a piece of documentation, mathematics, or legislation that you can produce that connects the CRA to what happened. Stop, just stop, because you are either completely and utterly ignorant of what the CRA did and what caused the collapse, or you are a liar and a partisan shill. Those are the only two possibilities in this case.


This, this, and more this.

DrPainMD: even tho they put every bit of it in writing.


Yes, it was put in writing. Not a single letter of it supports your delusions.
 
2013-04-28 02:31:17 AM
The U.S has the laws in place to do this. they just don't ever enforce those laws. Can't be going around throwing job creators in jail.
 
2013-04-28 03:44:53 AM

Sergeant Grumbles: iaazathot: The CRA had nothing to do with the 2007 collapse. There is not a piece of documentation, mathematics, or legislation that you can produce that connects the CRA to what happened. Stop, just stop, because you are either completely and utterly ignorant of what the CRA did and what caused the collapse, or you are a liar and a partisan shill. Those are the only two possibilities in this case.

This, this, and more this.

DrPainMD: even tho they put every bit of it in writing.

Yes, it was put in writing. Not a single letter of it supports your delusions.


i have a friend that was a branch manager and when this stuff happened, he was writing letters to congress saying it was a really bad idea.  i was in college then (and so therefore didn't pay attention to things...), so, i have no idea who to say "citation needed".
 
2013-04-28 06:56:02 AM

jjorsett: Back in the olden days, banks had to have a ton of equity from their owners, and they lost it if the bank went belly up. They also had to have large reserves. How about we go back to that system rather than passing more laws and regs that amount to sweeping up the rubble after a poorly-capitalized or over-leveraged bank fails?


A few UK banks still do. They're private banks. They aren't protected, but at the same time, the owners are personally at risk. And guess what happened in the bank collapse? They all survived, because they all had people with very deep interests in keeping it going.
 
2013-04-28 08:19:33 AM

Gunther: Debeo Summa Credo: Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.

We actually do that, when they commit crimes. The icelandic guys who were jailed approved bad loans to related parties, which is what got them in trouble, IIRC.

We don't.   People should have been jailed for life over the Libor scandal (which, as the wikipedia article puts it "dwarfs by orders of magnitude any financial scam in the history of markets", yet the worst that happened was a few slap-on-the-wrist company fines. Eric Holder has actually said that it's dangerous to prosecute anyone because it could lead to "collateral consequences"  - apparently the world's economy would somehow collapse if we put bankers in jail for stealing from us.


Holder was too busy selling guns to drug cartels.
 
2013-04-28 08:53:30 AM

farkeruk: jjorsett: Back in the olden days, banks had to have a ton of equity from their owners, and they lost it if the bank went belly up. They also had to have large reserves. How about we go back to that system rather than passing more laws and regs that amount to sweeping up the rubble after a poorly-capitalized or over-leveraged bank fails?

A few UK banks still do. They're private banks. They aren't protected, but at the same time, the owners are personally at risk. And guess what happened in the bank collapse? They all survived, because they all had people with very deep interests in keeping it going.


The one major UK high street bank that was more or less unaffected by the crisis was LloydsTSB, who had been criticised for years for being "too cautious" and not getting into the sub prime market etc. Then when it all went tits up they were laughing.

Until Gordon Brown stitched them up to rescue HBOS to save votes in his Scottish constituency and their huge toxic debt dragged the whole of LTSB down so they needed a bailout. Bastard.

Of course the UK bailout meant the government bailing the bank out in return for equity. To this day the government is the biggest shareholder in the bank owning 43% of the shares.
 
2013-04-28 10:41:36 AM
 For a moment I thought that headline was for a satire peice. There's no way our congressional whores would ever do anything like that.
Hypnozombie
 
2013-04-28 10:52:44 AM

R.P.M.: i have a friend that was a branch manager and when this stuff happened, he was writing letters to congress saying it was a really bad idea. i was in college then (and so therefore didn't pay attention to things...), so, i have no idea who to say "citation needed".


http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09 /c ommunity_reinv.html

CRA applicable loans did not default in any greater numbers than the average prime loan.
Subprime loans, along with the subsequent bundling and selling them with falsified ratings, credit default swaps, and other financial shenanigans were the main causes of the crash. The banks themselves engaged in irresponsible behavior, absent any government direction to do so.

The CRA just hits all the dog whistle terms Republicans like to mumble under their breath, while they think "It forces banks to give free money to black people!" You can see it in the comments to that business week article. But the actual facts are that it's not what the CRA did, nor were CRA loans greater default risks than other types of loans.

It IS all in writing and it does not support Dr DerpMD's delusions, and I suspect your friend was misinformed as well. It's just too hard for Republicans to give up a great bumper sticker slogan and strawman.
 
2013-04-28 01:28:47 PM

ongbok: The U.S has the laws in place to do this. they just don't ever enforce those laws. Can't be going around throwing job creators in jail.


THIS.

Hanging them from the lampposts of Wall St., Sand Hill Road, and every other financial district in the country is too good for them.
 
2013-04-28 01:40:18 PM

ongbok: The U.S has the laws in place to do this. they just don't ever enforce those laws. Can't be going around throwing job creators in jail.


I highly recommend people read this book.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com

On September 25, 2008, ABC News reported that Goldman and its executives and employees had spent "more than 43 million dollars on lobbying and campaign contributions to cultivate friends and buy influence in Washington, D.C. since 1989." Moreover, ABC News noted, "as a group, Goldman Sachs bankers have been the country's top political campaign contributors this year and have given $29.5 million in contributions since 1989." "They are almost in a class by themselves," declared Sheila Krumholz, the executive director for the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiled the data.

The same week, the New York Times described one of the crucial secret meetings that shaped the federal government's response to the financial crisis. Presiding over that gathering at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York was Bush treasury secretary-and former Goldman CEO-Hank Paulson. The primary topic of discussion was the imminent collapse of American International Group, the giant insurance corporation. AIG's principal government regulator was absent from the meeting, but in attendance were a small number of Wall Street executives, including Lloyd Blankfein, Paulson's successor as the CEO of Goldman Sachs. The AIG matter was of urgent concern to Blankfein because, as the Times put it, "a collapse of [AIG] threatened to leave a hole of as much as $20 billion in Goldman's side." The outcome of the meeting, of course, could not have been better for Goldman: "Days later, federal officials, who...initially balked at tossing a lifeline to A.I.G., ended up bailing out the insurer for $85 billion."

Ordinarily, when a severely distressed company such as AIG is being saved by an infusion of capital, the party providing that money has significant leverage to negotiate with the failing company's creditors. The rescuing entity can easily force those creditors to accept deep discounts on the failing company's debt as a condition of the rescue. The reason for this is obvious. The party saving the distressed company simply tells the creditors: if you refuse to settle for a partial repayment of the money you loaned, then we will not rescue the company, it will collapse, and you might collect nothing at all. The U.S. government, when bailing out AIG, was thus in the perfect position to force those companies to which AIG owed the most money-including Goldman-to agree to substantial discounts and thereby make the bailout significantly cheaper. That was particularly true since many of those same creditors (again including Goldman) were themselves vying to receive multibillion-dollar bailouts, providing added leverage for government negotiators.

But in the case of AIG and Goldman, none of that happened. Not only was the insurance firm bailed out by the federal government, but-with the U.S. government essentially in control-it ended up paying off its debts at a rate of 100 percent; not a single penny of discount was negotiated. That meant that Goldman received the full amount due from AIG, in addition to the sums received directly from the government as part of its own bailout. That decision stood in rather stark contrast to the U.S. government's dealings with the United Auto Workers in February 2009. There, the government insisted that it would only bail out the auto industry if the union agreed to massive reductions in contractually stipulated benefits.

A month after the UAW negotiations, a major controversy erupted when it was revealed that AIG executives-including many who had presided over the very transactions that had led to that firm's near demise, a demise averted only with a major infusion of taxpayer money-were to receive millions of dollars in bonuses. The Obama administration insisted that it was powerless to stop those bonuses. When asked by George Stephanopoulos of ABC News to defend that claim, Larry Summers, one of Obama's top economic advisers, righteously invoked noble legal principles: "We are a country of law. There are contracts. The government cannot just abrogate contracts."

Stephanopoulos notably failed to ask why that same government could force the working-class, nonculpable, politically powerless autoworkers to accept major reductions in their contractual benefits as a condition for a bailout but could not do the same for the highly culpable, extremely wealthy AIG executives. Apparently, the sanctity of contract rights shields the entitlements of financial elites but is no barrier to forcing ordinary Americans to give up vested rights upon pain of losing their jobs.
 
2013-04-28 02:22:33 PM

Sergeant Grumbles: R.P.M.: i have a friend that was a branch manager and when this stuff happened, he was writing letters to congress saying it was a really bad idea. i was in college then (and so therefore didn't pay attention to things...), so, i have no idea who to say "citation needed".

http://www.businessweek.com/investing/insights/blog/archives/2008/09 /c ommunity_reinv.html

CRA applicable loans did not default in any greater numbers than the average prime loan.
Subprime loans, along with the subsequent bundling and selling them with falsified ratings, credit default swaps, and other financial shenanigans were the main causes of the crash. The banks themselves engaged in irresponsible behavior, absent any government direction to do so.

The CRA just hits all the dog whistle terms Republicans like to mumble under their breath, while they think "It forces banks to give free money to black people!" You can see it in the comments to that business week article. But the actual facts are that it's not what the CRA did, nor were CRA loans greater default risks than other types of loans.

It IS all in writing and it does not support Dr DerpMD's delusions, and I suspect your friend was misinformed as well. It's just too hard for Republicans to give up a great bumper sticker slogan and strawman.


thanks for that!  for full disclosure, i do lean to the right, but i was 100% against the bailouts (if you believe in a free market, there are going to be failures.  they should reap what they sow).  when i get a chance i will read that today. thanks again!
 
2013-04-28 06:58:52 PM

Weaver95: we should do what iceland did - they actually DID put bankers into a jail cell.  gee, its amazing what happens to banks when you start putting bankers into jail for being assholes with other people's money.  they stop being crooks REAL quick.


No they just learn to get more layers between them and the guilty, in other words provide jobs to guys who take the blame.

What's even funnier is people ignore that politicians have a hand in this by taking cash from the same crooks people are biatching about.
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report