Gator Country

108 · 03-07-2013, 02:05 PM

No deterrent if no fear of punishment

We have got to stop treating these corporate entities as individual people...CEOs and members of these banks boards of directors should be held responsible for the actions of their businesses.

Link

In a recent interview with PBS's Frontline, Lanny Breuer, head of the criminal division at the Department of Justice, appeared to admit that some financial institutions were too big to prosecute. In the "too big to fail is too big to jail" controversy that ensued, lobbyists and other supporters of big Wall Street firms tried all kinds of complicated ways to spin Mr. Breuer's words.

Their job got a lot harder yesterday when Eric Holder, the attorney general, stated clearly to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Quote:

"I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if you do prosecute, if you do bring a criminal charge, it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy," (Watch the video for yourself.)

American Banker, a trade publication, called Mr. Holder's statement a "stunning admission" and suggested this could mark a turning point in the debate about the size of very large financial institutions.

HALLGATOR · 03-07-2013, 02:08 PM

Seems to me they are saying what a lot of us knew already.

**G8trGr8t** · 03-07-2013, 02:10 PM

Break em up...now

orangeblueorangeblue · 03-07-2013, 02:18 PM

It isn't about the size, it's about the distributed culpability. There is no way to jail anyone if you think about things reasonably.

108 · 03-07-2013, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

It isn't about the size, it's about the distributed culpability. There is no way to jail anyone if you think about things reasonably.

if that is true, what is the solution?

obviously it is breaking them up is it not?

decrease the amount of power they wield over the US economy

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

if that is true, what is the solution?

obviously it is breaking them up is it not?

decrease the amount of power they wield over the US economy

And down a slippery slope we would go.

There is no natural right to expect people in business to do the things that will result in the maximum economic good. But we should expect all people, be they in business or in government, to obey the laws we have.

Said another way, government cannot and should not be in the business to try and prevent people from acting stupidly, either in business or government. (That was in part Chief Justice's argument in the ObamaCare matter). Even if those stupid actions damage the economy.

We learn.

108 · 03-07-2013, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

And down a slippery slope we would go.

There is no natural right to expect people in business to do the things that will result in the maximum economic good. But we should expect all people, be they in business or in government, to obey the laws we have.

Said another way, government cannot and should not be in the business to try and prevent people from acting stupidly, either in business or government. (That was in part Chief Justice's argument in the ObamaCare matter). Even if those stupid actions damage the economy.

We learn.

so can't break up, nor can prosecute

sounds like a win-win for them

or could just reinstate Glass-Steagall which would automatically downsize them

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

so can't break up, nor can prosecute

I think you can prosecute anyone that breaks the law. Holder just does not seem to think so. They guy is not very good at what he does.

I don't think glass steagle would have changed the real estate bubble one whit.

wgbgator · 03-07-2013, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

And down a slippery slope we would go.

There is no natural right to expect people in business to do the things that will result in the maximum economic good. But we should expect all people, be they in business or in government, to obey the laws we have.

Said another way, government cannot and should not be in the business to try and prevent people from acting stupidly, either in business or government. (That was in part Chief Justice's argument in the ObamaCare matter). Even if those stupid actions damage the economy.

We learn.

Actually if some cases of "acting stupdily" have the potential to harm others, the government should very much be making laws against those acts of stupidity. Isnt that the difference between having legal alcohol, but banning drunk driving?

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgbgator

Actually if some cases of "acting stupdily" have the potential to harm others, the government should very much be making laws against those acts of stupidity.

One can make a law that a particular, specific activity is illegal, especially ones that harm people.

Row6 · 03-07-2013, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

And down a slippery slope we would go.

There is no natural right to expect people in business to do the things that will result in the maximum economic good. But we should expect all people, be they in business or in government, to obey the laws we have.

Said another way, government cannot and should not be in the business to try and prevent people from acting stupidly, either in business or government. (That was in part Chief Justice's argument in the ObamaCare matter). Even if those stupid actions damage the economy.

We learn.

Agreed, however we had companies who were selling sup-prime poisoned bonds with one hand while buying default credit swaps on them with the other. I don't know the laws on fraud with financial institutions, but some of this went beyond stupidity.

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Row6

Agreed, however we had companies who were selling sup-prime poisoned bonds with one hand while buying default credit swaps on them with the other. I don't know the laws on fraud with financial institutions, but some of this went beyond stupidity.

Fraud and stupidity are two different things.

**gatorman_07732** · 03-07-2013, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

if that is true, what is the solution?

obviously it is breaking them up is it not?

decrease the amount of power they wield over the US economy

They are in the pockets of both sides in DC.

108 · 03-07-2013, 02:18 PM

reinstating Glass-Steagall would break them down

**vertigo0923** · 03-08-2013, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 108

reinstating Glass-Steagall would break them down

yeah. revoke gramm-leach-bliley and replace with glass-steagall. PLEASE.

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 02:20 PM

Laws for thee, but not for me.

orangeblueorangeblue · 03-07-2013, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Laws for thee, but not for me.

For whom? Who should be jailed? The CEO? Why? What crime did the CEO commit?

MichaelJoeWilliamson · 03-07-2013, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

For whom? Who should be jailed? The CEO? Why? What crime did the CEO commit?

I don't know that answer. But if Holder did indeed say that the senior people in giant corporations cannot be accused, tried and convicted just because they are part of a big corporation, then that is a serious problem.

Lawdog88 · 03-07-2013, 02:46 PM

Defense: Spread the culpability of (you name the crime) so thin, that it sticks to no one.

wgbgator · 03-07-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I don't know that answer. But if Holder did indeed say that the senior people in giant corporations cannot be accused, tried and convicted just because they are part of a big corporation, then that is a serious problem.

Is that the very purpose of a corporation? To limit legal liability?