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.

(Guardian)   Should bankers be jailed for "reckless misconduct"?   (guardian.co.uk) divider line 33
    More: Obvious, bankers, business secretary, Libor, failed banks  
•       •       •

669 clicks; posted to Business » on 19 Jun 2013 at 11:05 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-19 10:29:43 AM  
Of course not. They should be hanged and their assets given to the poor.
 
2013-06-19 10:39:30 AM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-06-19 10:42:23 AM  
So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.
 
2013-06-19 11:08:40 AM  
Should bankers be jailed for "reckless misconduct"?

FTFY
 
2013-06-19 11:09:05 AM  
If laws have been broken, the people who broke said laws should be punished.


/1% of 1 month's profit is not punishment.
 
2013-06-19 11:12:23 AM  
I agree with doglover.
 
2013-06-19 11:13:54 AM  

R.A.Danny: So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.


Bill George has discussed this.  He has stated that the position of CEO often now goes to those who are less risk adversive, those with charisma, those with style over substance.  He says they are wreckless and dangerous.   These traits that he enumerated are also possessed by sociopaths, discussed specifically in the film "I am Fish Head".

Yes, they should be accountable sir.
 
2013-06-19 11:14:12 AM  
img.fark.net

Yes. They should be locked away and their assets seized.
 
2013-06-19 11:18:47 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 12:30:02 PM  

bromah: R.A.Danny: So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.

Bill George has discussed this.  He has stated that the position of CEO often now goes to those who are less risk adversive, those with charisma, those with style over substance.  He says they are wreckless and dangerous.   These traits that he enumerated are also possessed by sociopaths, discussed specifically in the film "I am Fish Head".

Yes, they should be accountable sir.


Sociopaths that make more money than they lose are AWESOME.
 
2013-06-19 12:32:46 PM  
yes.
 
2013-06-19 12:32:50 PM  
Initial, biased response:  Yes.

After thinking a second: No.

I would not want to create a precedent which would later allow for other company employees to be treated the same way.  People make mistakes, there should be a correction and consequence but I just don't know the best way to handle it without addressing the unintended consequences.
 
2013-06-19 12:37:55 PM  
How can there be any real growth without risk? Our entire economy would stagnate. This is ridiculous and you are all sounding like a bunch of conservatives.
 
2013-06-19 12:38:13 PM  

macdaddy357: I agree with doglover.


Thirded, and the heads of the Big 4 should be drawn and quartered, with the quarters scattered to the winds, their property should be given to the poor, and their wives and children sold into slavery.

/ unusually bitter this morning
// never been overtly boned by a big bank, astonishingly enough
/// knows some people who have been prey to predatory lending though
 
2013-06-19 12:39:04 PM  

WhoGAS: Initial, biased response:  Yes.

After thinking a second: No.

I would not want to create a precedent which would later allow for other company employees to be treated the same way.  People make mistakes, there should be a correction and consequence but I just don't know the best way to handle it without addressing the unintended consequences.


Reckless Misconduct.  I'm sure one could word a law in such a way that risk-taking is allowed, but selling stuff as good investments when you're betting against them should be illegal and carry massive fines, jail time, and the requirement to pay back everyone's losses.
 
2013-06-19 12:48:24 PM  

R.A.Danny: So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.


If it's a bank, it's not theirs. The assets belong to their depositors.
 
2013-06-19 12:50:11 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: [img.fark.net image 202x250]


Towermonkey: Thirded, and the heads of the Big 4 should be drawn and quartered, with the quarters scattered to the winds, their property should be given to the poor, and their wives and children sold into slavery.


These are good ideas but I prefer the traditional Russian punishment for financial misconduct:
 
2013-06-19 12:51:13 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Eddie Adams from Torrance: [img.fark.net image 202x250]

Towermonkey: Thirded, and the heads of the Big 4 should be drawn and quartered, with the quarters scattered to the winds, their property should be given to the poor, and their wives and children sold into slavery.

These are good ideas but I prefer the traditional Russian punishment for financial misconduct:


[it was a drawing of someone being broken on the wheel]
 
2013-06-19 12:53:01 PM  

fatbear: R.A.Danny: So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.

If it's a bank, it's not theirs. The assets belong to their depositors.


No. No. No. No. No. No.

The depositor's money is one of the smaller chunks of cash a bank the size of Chase or BOA has. They don't even like that low margin business.
 
2013-06-19 12:55:34 PM  

47 is the new 42: WhoGAS: Initial, biased response:  Yes.

After thinking a second: No.

I would not want to create a precedent which would later allow for other company employees to be treated the same way.  People make mistakes, there should be a correction and consequence but I just don't know the best way to handle it without addressing the unintended consequences.

Reckless Misconduct.  I'm sure one could word a law in such a way that risk-taking is allowed, but selling stuff as good investments when you're betting against them should be illegal and carry massive fines, jail time, and the requirement to pay back everyone's losses.


There's a difference between a mistake with unintended consequences and Reckless Misconduct.  One is an accident, the other is intentional.
 
2013-06-19 12:56:14 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: These are good ideas but I prefer the traditional Russian punishment for financial misconduct:


I think this is what you meant to post:

img.fark.net
 
2013-06-19 01:04:24 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: AliceBToklasLives: Eddie Adams from Torrance: [img.fark.net image 202x250]

Towermonkey: Thirded, and the heads of the Big 4 should be drawn and quartered, with the quarters scattered to the winds, their property should be given to the poor, and their wives and children sold into slavery.

These are good ideas but I prefer the traditional Russian punishment for financial misconduct:

[it was a drawing of someone being broken on the wheel]


Ah. The strappado sounds appropriate too. Or falanga, then turn them loose, shoeless, in the Mojave in August.

/ sometimes the old ways are best, no?
 
2013-06-19 01:16:15 PM  

doglover: Of course not. They should be hanged and their assets given to the poor.


I'll second this.

/or shot
//or thrown off the top floor of their HQ
 
2013-06-19 01:24:35 PM  
It's a start...
 
2013-06-19 01:27:05 PM  

R.A.Danny: fatbear: R.A.Danny: So someone that has made billions for a bank should be jailed for taking a risk with the BANK'S assets and losing once in a while?  Hell, Chase had RECORD profits last year despite the "whale" debacle.

No.

If it's a bank, it's not theirs. The assets belong to their depositors.

No. No. No. No. No. No.

The depositor's money is one of the smaller chunks of cash a bank the size of Chase or BOA has. They don't even like that low margin business.


"Banks" and "investments houses" need to be separated again.

I put them in quotes because the definitions change with the direction of the hot air in congress.
 
2013-06-19 01:29:35 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: If laws have been broken, the people who broke said laws should be punished.


Bingo. I'm also in favor of strengthening said laws. Financial institutions need very clear boundaries on what they can and can't do. And by "clear," I mean an average jury needs to be able to understand exactly what happened and why it was a violation.

If any financial institution violates those specific laws - I don't care if it's Chase or your local credit union - charge the signing parties with the appropriate crimes.
 
2013-06-19 02:29:09 PM  
Yes
 
2013-06-19 02:30:51 PM  
Let's say a professional engineer designed a new type of bridge truss which saved cost and weight, but had a critical flaw when scaled up beyond a certain size.  Let's say no one in a regulatory position noticed that flaw, and the new design started to be used in all sorts of bridges.  Ten years down the road, some bridges collapse, and the investigation determines that the new type of truss initiated the failure, and that the truss' design was faulty.  Legally, the designing engineer is liable for the problems and would be prosecuted, probably criminally as well as civilly (for payouts from the liability insurance professional engineers are required to hold).

There is no such legal framework for finance.  The guy who introduced the simplified risk calculation methods which led to repackaged subprime mortgages being sold as AAA securities bears no legal responsibility, nor do any of the people who used that simplification inappropriately.  Nor are any of the people who decided to do the repackaging, those who pushed the subprime mortgages with ridiculous rate increases, nor the ratings agencies who failed catastrophically at their primary responsibility.  The global financial system is bigger and more important to society than it's ever been, and yet has almost none of the protections against incompetence and recklessness that we've integrated into nearly every industry that involves actual physical goods.

I don't know enough about finance to have all the right answers, but the current state of affairs just seems crazy.  It's like if we allowed construction companies to build hundred-story skyscrapers without any kind of structural review.  I would guess the biggest problem is that we can't accurately model the effect a new financial instrument or technique will have on the overall system -- and if that's the case, maybe we should figure that out before we keep on figuring out new ways to use money to buy more money.
 
2013-06-19 03:12:39 PM  

47 is the new 42: WhoGAS: Initial, biased response:  Yes.

After thinking a second: No.

I would not want to create a precedent which would later allow for other company employees to be treated the same way.  People make mistakes, there should be a correction and consequence but I just don't know the best way to handle it without addressing the unintended consequences.

Reckless Misconduct.  I'm sure one could word a law in such a way that risk-taking is allowed, but selling stuff as good investments when you're betting against them should be illegal and carry massive fines, jail time, and the requirement to pay back everyone's losses.


Thats what I was thinking as well. Say if you invest in a company it fails you lose money no harm no foul. But if you do it knowing that it has a good chance of failure so you can reap a reward from that, fark you and everyone involved.
 
2013-06-19 04:25:17 PM  
Penalties should be relative to the loss.

If they stole billions, then the penalty should be billions.

Jail time should be mandatory and lengthy.


If a person can get years for robbery, then the same should be true for robber barons.
 
2013-06-19 04:56:48 PM  
Did the bankers in questions steal ALL the coconuts from the islands?
 
2013-06-20 12:01:04 AM  
These people didn't "make mistakes." And Reckless is the operating word here. They went on a Craps binge and when it came time to cough up for their ride, they handed the bag to us and said "you deal with this."

Billions, hell tens of billions of dollars are gone in a wink because of these people. People should be in prison for what they did to society in general. The crap they pulled will be felt by my grandchildren, and I don't even have any yet. I'm genuinely surprised no one has been gunned down by a bitter ex-employee.
 
2013-06-20 10:14:59 AM  

BizarreMan: 47 is the new 42: WhoGAS: Initial, biased response:  Yes.

After thinking a second: No.

I would not want to create a precedent which would later allow for other company employees to be treated the same way.  People make mistakes, there should be a correction and consequence but I just don't know the best way to handle it without addressing the unintended consequences.

Reckless Misconduct.  I'm sure one could word a law in such a way that risk-taking is allowed, but selling stuff as good investments when you're betting against them should be illegal and carry massive fines, jail time, and the requirement to pay back everyone's losses.

There's a difference between a mistake with unintended consequences and Reckless Misconduct.  One is an accident, the other is intentional.


Please re-read my post.  I mentioned a law could be worded such as risk taking could be allowed, but the selling stuff as good investments when you're betting against them is wrong and should be illegal carrying massive penalties.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report