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.

(Wall Street Journal)   JP Morgan's top lawyer thinks the recent $13 billion fine leveled at his company is horribly unfair and wants to know "at what point does it stop?" Umm, just spit-balling here, but maybe when you guys stop breaking the law?   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 44
    More: Dumbass, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Consumer Financial Protection Bureau  
•       •       •

2440 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Nov 2013 at 11:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



44 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-11-25 11:25:32 AM  
I suppose it stops when they buy the final Congresscritter to change the laws to make what they do legal. You know, sort of like the whole CDO thing, which, of course, had no lasting repercussions. Just boys being boys. Economic roughhousing, even. Just healthy competition and mischief...
 
2013-11-25 11:29:53 AM  
Link (NSFW language)
 
2013-11-25 11:30:46 AM  
Thou shalt not make a profit in a manner which damages the system which allowed you to make that profit in the first place.

/ comma, 'asshole'.
 
2013-11-25 11:31:39 AM  
Firing squads.
It ends right after firing squads.
 
2013-11-25 11:32:19 AM  

hubiestubert: I suppose it stops when they buy the final Congresscritter to change the laws to make what they do legal. You know, sort of like the whole CDO thing, which, of course, had no lasting repercussions. Just boys being boys. Economic roughhousing, even. Just healthy competition and mischief...


Well I wouldn't say NO lasting repercussions, the Dodd-Frank Act has a lot of the big financial institutions very worried, it's just it hasn;t really been implemented yet, because the process of issuing the regulations is being fought tooth and nail by these same guys.  You'll know  the regs are in place when  a lot of GOP congressmen start making "reforming the Dodd-Frank act" a major campaign issue or start talking about replacing the CFPB's direction with a 4-member, ideologically split, commission
 
2013-11-25 11:32:42 AM  
It stops when you farking leeches stop breaking the law, or are crow food.

So, you know, whichever you prefer, worthless shiatbags.
 
2013-11-25 11:34:01 AM  
It stops when they round up the coporate, wall street, and political assholes that created the current world wide mess, and hang the lot of them for crimes against humanity. If they could do it to the scraps of the nazi regime  that were left after the end of WWII for their participation in mass destruction, why can't they do it now to the people who have done it for self gain who benefited by the ruination of entire economies?
 
2013-11-25 11:36:06 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
GBB
2013-11-25 11:37:28 AM  

vudukungfu: Firing squads.
It ends right after firing squads.


Forget the squads, they should use snipers.
 
2013-11-25 11:41:13 AM  
ts1.mm.bing.net
 
2013-11-25 11:41:17 AM  

GBB: vudukungfu: Firing squads.
It ends right after firing squads.

Forget the squads, they should use snipers.


Bullets are expensive:  How about we take a page from the Mongol conquest of Russia and treat them like defeat nobility?  We could even make it a theme restaurant in Manhattan
 
2013-11-25 11:42:42 AM  
What a douche.
 
2013-11-25 11:43:31 AM  
Am I the only one seeing a rather signifigant disconnect here?
Our "best and brightest" seem pretty stupid and isolated from the real world.
 
2013-11-25 11:48:05 AM  
These people really do live in a parallel universe.
 
2013-11-25 11:48:15 AM  

vudukungfu: Firing squads.
It ends right after firing squads.


yep pretty much this...
 
2013-11-25 11:49:17 AM  
"We should all be concerned" about the recent spate of record-setting fines for J.P. Morgan and other banks "because at a certain point people become immune to the numbers," he said at a conference hosted by industry trade association The Clearing House.

I'm sure JP Morgan is not "immune" to that "13 billion" number.
 
2013-11-25 11:50:49 AM  
Big institutions, he said, should not be slapped with eye-popping fines simply because of their size.


orly.jpg
 
2013-11-25 11:53:27 AM  

www.comediansatlaw.com


BANKERS!

 
2013-11-25 11:57:13 AM  

TheDirtyNacho: Big institutions, he said, should not be slapped with eye-popping fines simply because of their size.


orly.jpg


Well, I agree with the lawyer on that. The fine should be based on how much damage they've done, this paltry 13 billion is nowhere near sufficient, they've caused trillion dollar amounts of damage to the economy, so it is no more than reasonable that they pay trillions of dollars in fines and compensation the afflicted people who lost jobs or businesses.
 
2013-11-25 11:58:13 AM  
Advertise a cocaine buffet on Wall Street. Fill the house, lock the doors and burn it down. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
2013-11-25 12:01:57 PM  
occupy thread!  grab some guillotine images and blow off some steam.
 
2013-11-25 12:01:59 PM  
You do know who pays for this?

(hint: how do consumers end up paying for seller's increased costs?)
 
2013-11-25 12:04:33 PM  

TheDirtyNacho: Big institutions, he said, should not be slapped with eye-popping fines simply because of their size.


orly.jpg


Actually they should, and need to be, it's the way our system was designed.

Unlike Europe which imposes very strong governmental regulation of corporations backed by criminal sanctions, we lightly regulate our companies trusting civil suits by regulators and shareholders to effectively police corporate behavior (whether this is smart or not is an exercise for the reader) .  In order for that to be effective in regulating those companies, the damages recovered from those suits have to be sufficiently painful to curb the undesired behavior.  Punitive damages are calculated not based on the harm caused, but a sliding scale based on the assets of the company to arrive at a sum sufficient to make the company feel pain and punish them for intentionally bad behavior.  Similarly, civil fines and penalties NEED to be calculated as a percentage of profits or net worth to have any meaning at all.
 
2013-11-25 12:05:40 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: You do know who pays for this?

(hint: how do consumers end up paying for seller's increased costs?)


what do you purchase from their investment bank?
 
2013-11-25 12:09:01 PM  

deschinc: Advertise a cocaine buffet on Wall Street. Fill the house, lock the doors and burn it down. Lather, rinse, repeat.



image1.findagrave.com
Not bad
 
2013-11-25 12:10:53 PM  

I know more than you: TheDirtyNacho: Big institutions, he said, should not be slapped with eye-popping fines simply because of their size.


orly.jpg

Well, I agree with the lawyer on that. The fine should be based on how much damage they've done, this paltry 13 billion is nowhere near sufficient, they've caused trillion dollar amounts of damage to the economy, so it is no more than reasonable that they pay trillions of dollars in fines and compensation the afflicted people who lost jobs or businesses.


This.

 I agree with the bank that it's horribly unfair...they should be paying a lot more considering the damage they did. And that money should go right into the pockets of the people they damaged.
 
2013-11-25 12:11:13 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: "We should all be concerned" about the recent spate of record-setting fines for J.P. Morgan and other banks "because at a certain point people become immune to the numbers," he said at a conference hosted by industry trade association The Clearing House.

I'm sure JP Morgan is not "immune" to that "13 billion" number.


They pretty much are.
When all this went down in '08-'09, they put $25 billion away 'cause they knew there would be big fines in the future.
And some of the fine is a tax-deduction, so...

/Corporations aren't people til Texas executes one.
 
2013-11-25 12:17:21 PM  
Fines to a corporation are useless, so I agree with Glibertopians on that.

Where I part with Glibertopians, is fraud exists and should be vigorously PERSONALLY prosecuted.  The problem with Glibertopians is for all their talk about "personal responsibility" they don't really want it applied to corporations which they worship.  I should know, I was one for over 20 years.  They talk about it, but when was the last time either Ron or Rand Paul, or any other self-styled advocate of "personal responsibility" sponsored legislation to enforce it?  Never!

William Black back in the 80's prosecuted hundreds of bankers in JAIL during the S&L crisis, which was a damp squib by comparison.
 
2013-11-25 12:27:35 PM  

GBB: vudukungfu: Firing squads.
It ends right after firing squads.

Forget the squads, they should use snipers.


I read that as "strippers".
 
2013-11-25 12:30:20 PM  
Just throwin' it out there but isn't this the Chase that was asked [er...told] to buy up certain competitors to keep them from failing and now is being fined for the actions of those entities that they were asked to buy?  Or is that just internet rumor?
 
2013-11-25 12:36:00 PM  
Those poor, poor, rich bastards. How ever will they afford that second yacht?
 
2013-11-25 12:36:48 PM  

trappedspirit: occupy thread!  grab some guillotine images and blow off some steam.


Will occupy be wearing mask like this instead of their usual mask?
img.fark.net

/Obscure?
 
2013-11-25 12:45:02 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: You do know who pays for this?
(hint: how do consumers end up paying for seller's increased costs?)


Unless it's a monopoly, they won't.
The price isn't set by input costs, but by what the market is willing to pay. If the market would accept higher prices, they would already be at that level. Otherwise, price increases will just drive the market to other sellers.

Why do you believe otherwise?
 
2013-11-25 01:11:46 PM  

jtown: Just throwin' it out there but isn't this the Chase that was asked [er...told] to buy up certain competitors to keep them from failing and now is being fined for the actions of those entities that they were asked to buy?  Or is that just internet rumor?


True and not true
 SOME of the fines involve the mortgage lender which Treasury DID ask them to purchase.  But when Chase bought them it did so KNOWING there would be fines for their actions and Chase would be responsible for those.   As a result, Morgan negotiated such a fire sale price for the assets people like Jim Kramer were practically jizzing themselves on air praising Dimon for his ruthless brilliance and crowing about what an insanely good deal he got.
 
2013-11-25 01:14:48 PM  

AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 700x393]


Came here to post this... leaving satisfied that someone else is paying attention.

/what a bunch of whiners.
 
2013-11-25 01:21:34 PM  
I'm really fantasizing about a President Warren riding a populist wave of rage into the White House with Nancy Pelosi back as speaker in a House reclaimed by Democrats.  And that moment when their periods get in sync.
 
2013-11-25 01:22:28 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-11-25 01:44:41 PM  

I know more than you: TheDirtyNacho: Big institutions, he said, should not be slapped with eye-popping fines simply because of their size.


orly.jpg

Well, I agree with the lawyer on that. The fine should be based on how much they've profited from the damage they've done, this paltry 13 billion is nowhere near sufficient, they've caused trillion dollar amounts of damage to the economy, so it is no more than reasonable that they pay trillions of dollars in fines and compensation the afflicted people who lost jobs or businesses.


FTFY.

/Proceeds of crime are forfeit.
 
2013-11-25 02:19:49 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: (hint: how do consumers end up paying for seller's increased costs?)


That's right! As Adam Smith himself said, "There is only one brokerage on Wall Street, and if it raises prices there's no way for customers to pick a cheaper one."
 
2013-11-25 02:44:58 PM  
i236.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-25 02:46:23 PM  
I'm glad to see we're mostly in agreement that fines aren't enough. Heads should literally be rolling.
 
2013-11-25 03:28:53 PM  

Cubicle Jockey: Clemkadidlefark: You do know who pays for this?
(hint: how do consumers end up paying for seller's increased costs?)

Unless it's a monopoly, they won't.
The price isn't set by input costs, but by what the market is willing to pay. If the market would accept higher prices, they would already be at that level. Otherwise, price increases will just drive the market to other sellers.

Why do you believe otherwise?


Probably because he buys into the libertarian economic BS.


Disclaimer:  I know plenty of intelligent libertarians, but damn if they don't say the dumbest things about economics and business, without being able to actually back it up beyond circular reasoning.
 
2013-11-25 04:38:08 PM  
imageshack.us
 
2013-11-26 06:06:56 PM  
Flesh eating beetles which haven't been fed in 6 months.
Rabid wolverines and raccoons.
Clear plexiglass coffins.
Pay-Per-View.

Done.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report