More Bankers Convicted….

[barbos]

I am trying to explain to you the difference between US banksting and what you had and why no bankster will really go to prison in US.

SO in your world US bankers won´t go to prison because Icelanders were fishermen?

Pretty much.
US banksters are much more sophisticated than yours, they know they will not go to prison because they own US government.

 

[Frikki]

SO in your world US bankers won´t go to prison because Icelanders were fishermen?

Pretty much.
US banksters are much more sophisticated than yours, they know they will not go to prison because they own US government.

Ok thanks for your input.

 

[tupac chopra]

SO in your world US bankers won´t go to prison because Icelanders were fishermen?

Pretty much.
US banksters are much more sophisticated than yours, they know they will not go to prison because they own US government.

Iceland is a small place. I imagine that it's quite difficult even for a banker to avoid some contact with common people who were suffering.
America is a lot bigger. Those bankers would most likely be able to continue their lives without ever having to come into contact with most of those who suffered. Plus they regularly wine and dine with senior government people and enjoy a press which mostly doesn't like to upset them.
But I agree there is pretty much zero political will to anything about them in the USA and "occupy" were demonised pretty thoroughly.

Criminals in high places don't tend to get prosecuted (unless you are a whistle blower). No of those involved in torture will be prosecuted either.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

In this thread:

ConservoProgressives making excuses as to why the US didn't convict any Bankers, after looking at the excellent example set by Iceland.

If it weren't for Iceland, the ConservoProgressives could make excuses about how it wouldn't work, danger to the economic system, etc., bs., etc. But we have an example of what should have been done, and how it worked. And it works well with free market ideology.

 

[barbos]

In this thread:

ConservoProgressives making excuses as to why the US didn't convict any Bankers, after looking at the excellent example set by Iceland.

If it weren't for Iceland, the ConservoProgressives could make excuses about how it wouldn't work, danger to the economic system, etc., bs., etc. But we have an example of what should have been done, and how it worked. And it works well with free market ideology.

You can't be serious suggesting that Iceland example proves it would work.
Iceland is a tiny country which after they had gambled away some british money told them "Money are gone, go and fuck yourself" Amount of money on grand scheme of things were utterly insignificant not only for the world but for the Britain itself. There were no danger for the world economy. The only reason these people went to prison is because they were punks without any political connections to protect them. In US banksters do have real power over economy and more importantly over politicians. None of that was ever present in Iceland, they had nice gambling run and now it's back to fishing.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Iceland example proves it could work, and for all the reasons you say it wouldn't work.

 

[Frikki]

In this thread:

ConservoProgressives making excuses as to why the US didn't convict any Bankers, after looking at the excellent example set by Iceland.

If it weren't for Iceland, the ConservoProgressives could make excuses about how it wouldn't work, danger to the economic system, etc., bs., etc. But we have an example of what should have been done, and how it worked. And it works well with free market ideology.

You can't be serious suggesting that Iceland example proves it would work.
Iceland is a tiny country which after they had gambled away some british money told them "Money are gone, go and fuck yourself" Amount of money on grand scheme of things were utterly insignificant not only for the world but for the Britain itself. There were no danger for the world economy. The only reason these people went to prison is because they were punks without any political connections to protect them. In US banksters do have real power over economy and more importantly over politicians. None of that was ever present in Iceland, they had nice gambling run and now it's back to fishing.

OK we already have established that you don´t know what you are talking about, you can stop advertising it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In this thread:

ConservoProgressives making excuses as to why the US didn't convict any Bankers, after looking at the excellent example set by Iceland.

barbos isn't exactly more than one person.

If it weren't for Iceland, the ConservoProgressives could make excuses about how it wouldn't work, danger to the economic system, etc., bs., etc. But we have an example of what should have been done, and how it worked. And it works well with free market ideology.

It didn't work because the Obama Admin didn't force it to work. There may have been economic complications, enforcing regulations and laws, but ultimately, the people running the banks are also running the show, so that is why there hasn't been a single conviction related to the '08 crash. That isn't condoning, it is explaining it... it is also more evidence about how Obama isn't really a liberal to begin with.

You can't be serious suggesting that Iceland example proves it would work.
Iceland is a tiny country which after they had gambled away some british money told them "Money are gone, go and fuck yourself" Amount of money on grand scheme of things were utterly insignificant not only for the world but for the Britain itself. There were no danger for the world economy. The only reason these people went to prison is because they were punks without any political connections to protect them. In US banksters do have real power over economy and more importantly over politicians. None of that was ever present in Iceland, they had nice gambling run and now it's back to fishing.

OK we already have established that you don´t know what you are talking about, you can stop advertising it.

I believe what barbos is saying is that Iceland could afford to enforce reasonable laws because it wouldn't affect the global economy. If the US didn't turn a blind eye to the absolute fuckfest that was the mortgage fund ratings, that would mean restricted investments, which would mean it'd take the economy longer to recover, both the US and globally. There is probably some truth to it.

But kudos for having a nation with a banking system that works and where criminals go to prison. In the US you can fake an energy crisis to get a Governor recalled, you can literally know nothing about what you are rating in the investment world, and you can bankrupt unbankruptable companies... and not have any issues.

Of course, if you are moderately rich you could suffer the consequences of insider trading that gained you several thousands of dollars (Martha Stewart). In short, our country is full of shit.

 

[funinspace]

Of course, if you are moderately rich you could suffer the consequences of insider trading that gained you several thousands of dollars (Martha Stewart). In short, our country is full of shit.

Nit picking a little: Actually Martha Stewart was found guilty of obstructing the investigation and making false statements. She wasn't convicted of any SEC related charges. The new obvious rule is to request ones lawyer, when an FBI agent/Federal investigator wants to ask you questions, and generally say nothing. Not being under oath is irrelevant.

 

[barbos]

OK we already have established that you don´t know what you are talking about, you can stop advertising it.

It's not me, it's you.

 

[Frikki]

The well known Pinkos at the Economist seem to agree that the lack of convictions in the US is appaling. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21651822-americas-approach-punishing-financial-crime-muddled-lenient-and-self-defeating-unfair-cop

 

[Trausti]

The well known Pinkos at the Economist seem to agree that the lack of convictions in the US is appaling. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21651822-americas-approach-punishing-financial-crime-muddled-lenient-and-self-defeating-unfair-cop

Missing from this discussion, and not just in this thread but generally when this question comes up, is what crimes are the American bankers and financiers said to have committed? They may have been negligent, reckless, and imbued with irrational exuberance, but what crime? That's a distinction with the Iceland situation, where a clear illegal act was identified. For a financial crime you usually need evidence of fraud - like Enron cooking the books. Profiting from subprime mortgages, which were encouraged by the government to increase home ownership, is not a crime. That a government policy encouraging subprime mortgages existed was indeed a problem, but that people took advantage of this policy to profit is not worth the prosecutor's interest.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEoqKYCMDmc[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Frikki]

The well known Pinkos at the Economist seem to agree that the lack of convictions in the US is appaling. http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21651822-americas-approach-punishing-financial-crime-muddled-lenient-and-self-defeating-unfair-cop

Missing from this discussion, and not just in this thread but generally when this question comes up, is what crimes are the American bankers and financiers said to have committed? They may have been negligent, reckless, and imbued with irrational exuberance, but what crime? That's a distinction with the Iceland situation, where a clear illegal act was identified. For a financial crime you usually need evidence of fraud - like Enron cooking the books. Profiting from subprime mortgages, which were encouraged by the government to increase home ownership, is not a crime. That a government policy encouraging subprime mortgages existed was indeed a problem, but that people took advantage of this policy to profit is not worth the prosecutor's interest.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEoqKYCMDmc[/YOUTUBE]

The clear illegal acts were identified AFTER the Government Commission on the financial collapse and the establishment of the special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.

Also, the government in the states clearly has something on the banks since. "Regulators and prosecutors announced settlements with six international banks for alleged manipulation of currency markets (see article). The six agreed to pay some $5 billion in fines. Two did not admit to any crimes related to this abuse; the other four did, but received waivers shielding them from the consequence that would normally follow—the loss of an all-important banking licence. This week also marked the end of a 90-day period the Department of Justice (DoJ) had given itself to decide once and for all whether it could launch any prosecutions related to the financial crisis. The DoJ says only that it is reviewing the results of the review."

They had something on them and decided to settle instead.

I remember a distant past when Right Wingers like you actually stood for responsibility instead of excusing criminality just because it is committed by rich white guys.

 

[Trausti]

Missing from this discussion, and not just in this thread but generally when this question comes up, is what crimes are the American bankers and financiers said to have committed? They may have been negligent, reckless, and imbued with irrational exuberance, but what crime? That's a distinction with the Iceland situation, where a clear illegal act was identified. For a financial crime you usually need evidence of fraud - like Enron cooking the books. Profiting from subprime mortgages, which were encouraged by the government to increase home ownership, is not a crime. That a government policy encouraging subprime mortgages existed was indeed a problem, but that people took advantage of this policy to profit is not worth the prosecutor's interest.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEoqKYCMDmc[/YOUTUBE]

The clear illegal acts were identified AFTER the Government Commission on the financial collapse and the establishment of the special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.

Also, the government in the states clearly has something on the banks since. "Regulators and prosecutors announced settlements with six international banks for alleged manipulation of currency markets (see article). The six agreed to pay some $5 billion in fines. Two did not admit to any crimes related to this abuse; the other four did, but received waivers shielding them from the consequence that would normally follow—the loss of an all-important banking licence. This week also marked the end of a 90-day period the Department of Justice (DoJ) had given itself to decide once and for all whether it could launch any prosecutions related to the financial crisis. The DoJ says only that it is reviewing the results of the review."

They had something on them and decided to settle instead.

I remember a distant past when Right Wingers like you actually stood for responsibility instead of excusing criminality just because it is committed by rich white guys.

That's LIBOR, not that 2008 financial crisis. I thought all the indignation was about no convictions regarding that? I would hope you'd agree that no one, no one, should face the peril of criminal prosecution and loss of liberty where there is no evidence of a crime. But given the bold above, I suspect your motivation is something other than justice.

 

[Frikki]

The clear illegal acts were identified AFTER the Government Commission on the financial collapse and the establishment of the special prosecutor to investigate and prosecute possible crimes.

Also, the government in the states clearly has something on the banks since. "Regulators and prosecutors announced settlements with six international banks for alleged manipulation of currency markets (see article). The six agreed to pay some $5 billion in fines. Two did not admit to any crimes related to this abuse; the other four did, but received waivers shielding them from the consequence that would normally follow—the loss of an all-important banking licence. This week also marked the end of a 90-day period the Department of Justice (DoJ) had given itself to decide once and for all whether it could launch any prosecutions related to the financial crisis. The DoJ says only that it is reviewing the results of the review."

They had something on them and decided to settle instead.

I remember a distant past when Right Wingers like you actually stood for responsibility instead of excusing criminality just because it is committed by rich white guys.

That's LIBOR, not that 2008 financial crisis. I thought all the indignation was about no convictions regarding that? I would hope you'd agree that no one, no one, should face the peril of criminal prosecution and loss of liberty where there is no evidence of a crime. But given the bold above, I suspect your motivation is something other than justice.

If you don´t investigate crimes you don´t find them. There is nothing wrong with looking to see if crimes were committed. The indignation comes from the total lack of punishment levied against the parties responsible.
I added the white guys thing that you highlighted because you guys tend to be all about law and order when it comes to brown people.

 

[Harry Bosch]

If you don´t investigate crimes you don´t find them. There is nothing wrong with looking to see if crimes were committed. The indignation comes from the total lack of punishment levied against the parties responsible. I added the white guys thing that you highlighted because you guys tend to be all about law and order when it comes to brown people.

What crime should they investigate for?

 

[Frikki]

If you don´t investigate crimes you don´t find them. There is nothing wrong with looking to see if crimes were committed. The indignation comes from the total lack of punishment levied against the parties responsible. I added the white guys thing that you highlighted because you guys tend to be all about law and order when it comes to brown people.

What crime should they investigate for?

Well when your banking system goes tits up it might be prudent to look and see if there were crimes commited. Letting banks settle for a slap on the wrist with none of the actors punished is a moral hazard. If Iceland with it's meager talent pool and in the middle of a collapse can do it then surely larger countries can also.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Well when your banking system goes tits up it might be prudent to look and see if there were crimes commited. Letting banks settle for a slap on the wrist with none of the actors punished is a moral hazard. If Iceland with it's meager talent pool and in the middle of a collapse can do it then surely larger countries can also.

So just make up a crime? Or maybe enact crimes after the fact?

 

[Trausti]

Here I think is a balanced opinion piece weighing the question of prosecutions: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2014/jan/09/financial-crisis-why-no-executive-prosecutions/

This part is perhaps the truth to the matter:

On the one hand, the government, writ large, had a part in creating the conditions that encouraged the approval of dubious mortgages. Even before the start of the housing boom, it was the government, in the form of Congress, that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act, thus allowing certain banks that had previously viewed mortgages as a source of interest income to become instead deeply involved in securitizing pools of mortgages in order to obtain the much greater profits available from trading. It was the government, in the form of both the executive and the legislature, that encouraged deregulation, thus weakening the power and oversight not only of the SEC but also of such diverse banking overseers as the Office of Thrift Supervision and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, both in the Treasury Department. It was the government, in the form of the Federal Reserve, that kept interest rates low, in part to encourage mortgages. It was the government, in the form of the executive, that strongly encouraged banks to make loans to individuals with low incomes who might have previously been regarded as too risky to warrant a mortgage.

Thus, in the year 2000, HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo increased to 50 percent the percentage of low-income mortgages that the government-sponsored entities known as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were required to purchase, helping to create the conditions that resulted in over half of all mortgages being subprime at the time the housing market began to collapse in 2007.

It was the government, pretty much across the board, that acquiesced in the ever-greater tendency not to require meaningful documentation as a condition of obtaining a mortgage, often preempting in this regard state regulations designed to assure greater mortgage quality and a borrower’s ability to repay. Indeed, in the year 2000, the Office of Thrift Supervision, having just finished a successful campaign to preempt state regulation of thrift underwriting, terminated its own underwriting regulations entirely.

The result of all this was the mortgages that later became known as “liars’ loans.” They were increasingly risky; but what did the banks care, since they were making their money from the securitizations. And what did the government care, since it was helping to create a boom in the economy and helping voters to realize their dream of owning a home?

Moreover, the government was also deeply enmeshed in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It was the government that proposed the shotgun marriages of, among others, Bank of America with Merrill Lynch, and of J.P. Morgan with Bear Stearns. If, in the process, mistakes were made and liabilities not disclosed, was it not partly the government’s fault? One does not necessarily have to adopt the view of Neil Barofsky, former special inspector general in charge of oversight of TARP, that regulators made almost no effort to hold accountable the financial institutions they were bailing out, to wonder whether the government, having helped create the conditions that led to the seeming widespread fraud in the mortgage-backed securities market, was all too ready to forgive its alleged perpetrators.

Please do not misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that the government knowingly participated in any of the fraudulent practices alleged by the Financial Inquiry Crisis Commission and others. But what I am suggesting is that the government was deeply involved, from beginning to end, in helping create the conditions that could lead to such fraud, and that this would give a prudent prosecutor pause in deciding whether to indict a CEO who might, with some justice, claim that he was only doing what he fairly believed the government wanted him to do.

 

[Frikki]

Well when your banking system goes tits up it might be prudent to look and see if there were crimes commited. Letting banks settle for a slap on the wrist with none of the actors punished is a moral hazard. If Iceland with it's meager talent pool and in the middle of a collapse can do it then surely larger countries can also.

So just make up a crime? Or maybe enact crimes after the fact?

Are you dyslexic? I seem to remember you were a banker.