Holder Admits: "Too Big To Fail, To Big To Jail"

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichiGator2002

Honestly, when guys like Franklin Raines are in the inner circle -- and how many should realistically be higher on the prosecutorial hit list for the housing collapse? -- what were you expecting?

The Macs had minimal influence on the sub-prime crash - it was driven by private mortgage companies who had no federal oversight and then matastisized by Wall Street black jack dealers. Educate yourself.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by wgbgator

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

What? I am not sure how you got that from what I wrote?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

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.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I think you can prosecute anyone that breaks the law. Holder just does not seem to think so.

What person and what law?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

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.

[gatorman_07732]

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.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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

Which activity?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

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.

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

What person and what law?

I don't know. But again, when Holder says people in big corporations are not subject to the rule of law, then we have a problem. Why you need to have that repeated to you multiple times? Do you not see this as a problem?

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

Which activity?

Any activity can be legislated, as long as doing so does not violate the constitution.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

Fraud and stupidity are two different things.

Indeed, that's what I pointed out.

[GatorFanCF]

Perhaps I'm guilty of being an unfeeling conservative; but, I do not understand the value of NOT prosecuting because some innocents might be hurt. If innocents ARE hurt doesn't it lessen the likelihood that people will engage in such behavior in the future?

Joe steals $3 million from his employer; but, he asks for mercy because he has 3 young children who would be adversely affected by his incarceration? Well, if Joe gets thrown in the clink for 20 years perhaps his children, the family, and all the folks who know Joe will get an unmistakeable message that stealing money is not worth it. Does it suck? Yes. Children are innocent and subject to their parents' good decisions and bad decisions. I think a moral hazard is created when we prosecute - or don't - on how the prosecution will affect relations.

Banks - if we did prosecute the lot of the folks involved in the mortgage debacle many, many others would lose their jobs, investments, and homes. Would they - from then on - be more circumspect about who they work for, what they're investing in and whether they can actually afford the mortgage payment? I think so. I believe one principle our nation was founded on is that of "no privelege" - the local magistrate couldn't just have your daughter because he was a weathly land owner and had authority - he had to play by the same rules as everyone else. I guess black americans have known this their entire lives; now, white americans are realizing that - though they may have pretty good - there is another tier of "elites" that play by their own rules and d**n the rest of us.

[108]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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.

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers.

[gatorman_07732]

Originally Posted by 108

Glass-Steagall would have prevented the banks from using insured depositories to underwrite private securities and dump them on their own customers.

You're looking backward

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

I don't know. But again, when Holder says people in big corporations are not subject to the rule of law,

That isn't what's being said here.

If you can't name the law, how can you complain about said law not being applied?

[gator0254]

Try as you might you still have the burden of proof for any criminal charges. The CEO is not personally responsible for every decision the business makes no matter how much you would like to think that is thee case. He is not the captain of the ship - he is an employee of the corporation.

Just because you'd like to make him guilty you still have to prove him guilty

An re-applying Glass-Steagall could not happen overnight - you would have to build target dates into it or the stock holders take a bath (though they likely would anyway.

The simplest thing would be to spin off the non-banking subsidiaries - sounds easy but is not

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by MichaelJoeWilliamson

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

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

Bingo. He's bad at what he does and worse for what he doesn't do.

[MastaG8r]

Originally Posted by GatorFanCF

Perhaps I'm guilty of being an unfeeling conservative; but, I do not understand the value of NOT prosecuting because some innocents might be hurt. If innocents ARE hurt doesn't it lessen the likelihood that people will engage in such behavior in the future?

Joe steals $3 million from his employer; but, he asks for mercy because he has 3 young children who would be adversely affected by his incarceration? Well, if Joe gets thrown in the clink for 20 years perhaps his children, the family, and all the folks who know Joe will get an unmistakeable message that stealing money is not worth it. Does it suck? Yes. Children are innocent and subject to their parents' good decisions and bad decisions. I think a moral hazard is created when we prosecute - or don't - on how the prosecution will affect relations.

Banks - if we did prosecute the lot of the folks involved in the mortgage debacle many, many others would lose their jobs, investments, and homes. Would they - from then on - be more circumspect about who they work for, what they're investing in and whether they can actually afford the mortgage payment? I think so. I believe one principle our nation was founded on is that of "no privelege" - the local magistrate couldn't just have your daughter because he was a weathly land owner and had authority - he had to play by the same rules as everyone else. I guess black americans have known this their entire lives; now, white americans are realizing that - though they may have pretty good - there is another tier of "elites" that play by their own rules and d**n the rest of us.

Quality Post™

I don't understand the concern about not being able to put people in jail. Corporate crimes against consumers are financial in nature and the punishment should fit the crime. If a corporation hurts people then hit them back where it hurts. Sending their executives to jail costs them nothing except whatever fees they pay the headhunters to recruit replacements.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Originally Posted by gator0254

Try as you might you still have the burden of proof for any criminal charges.

You need:

1. A crime
2. A person or persons responsible
3. Proof of that

This fails on all three. People are angry that these institutions were partially responsible for our economic collapse. But there isn't a crime and there isn't a person to place a crime on them. This is all emotion.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by orangeblueorangeblue

You need:

1. A crime
2. A person or persons responsible
3. Proof of that

This fails on all three. People are angry that these institutions were partially responsible for our economic collapse. But there isn't a crime and there isn't a person to place a crime on them. This is all emotion.

The crime - if there is one, and hard to believe there was not - was fraud, i.e., selling known junk while making money through the back door on knowing it was junk. I can't quote chapter and verse because I'm not a lawyer, but are you maintaining that there is no law covering such behavior - if proven?