Which makes it not a penalty, but a cost of doing business.
As far as I’m concerned, the penalty for theft / fraud / etc. should automatically be twice the amount of money involved. You steal a $200 stereo, you pay $400 in restitution. You launder $4billion for the cartels*, you pay $8billion in fines.
*I don’t think that link names the $4b number, but it was the best estimate of the real amount I’ve heard.
I’m sitting at work with 10 other Americans that lost their homes in the Financial Meltdown. This has irrevocably disabled our credit / retirement / lost marriages / decimated savings / major health issues / and I count two of them that had heart attacks. $5 billion doesn’t even start to cover the pain and suffering the Banksters did to the USA. I never hated anyone or anything before, but I’d pay good money to be locked in a room with those scumbags, really.
PS. The myth of the victimized, over-taxed, virtuous, and morally superior [m]billionaire would be laughable were it not accepted as religious truth in the USA, but not by me.
Sounds good, but it’s utterly pointless. These people are the ones who are directly in charge of the ‘value’ of money and can make it purchase exactly what they need it to, any time they like. It’s why money is the largest con-trick in history.
I wish I could join you so we could “go to 11.”
That conspiracy of entitled, self-congratulating rich kids destroyed ten+ years of home equity and retirement.
But there was still debt comparable to before earning a professional degree and working many years of long hours without vacations.
The only way this would deter future crime would be if this and other penalties went entirely to fund the SEC and other regulators. But that won’t happen because, you know: government and regulation BAD!
I cheered the death of Arthur Andersen for this reason. If stockholders had a reasonable fear of losing it all they would have incentive to keep oversight on what a corporation does, and not just how profitable it is. Even better would be if corporations were structured like Lloyds of London, where you share the losses as well as the profits. If corporate malfeasance could leave you penniless you sure as shit would keep a close eye on them.
OK Smart Guy. Give us your off-the-cuff plan.
Or your speaking fees. Either works.
C[quote=“MikeTheBard, post:21, topic:76454”]
As far as I’m concerned, the penalty for theft / fraud / etc. should automatically be twice the amount of money involved.
[/quote]
Problem there is you’re only talking about the amount discovered, which could still be merely “cost of doing business.”
This is why I question the New York’s AG claims that the fines will be used as some type of restitution. Are they going to hunt down all the folks who have lost their homes and make good for them? No. It’s for future bureaucratic funding.
eta: the link states over $44 billion from all of the banks so far (including GS).
Some portion of the money is supposed to provide mortgage relief for customers. Bonus: customers who get relief may be liable for taxes on the relief, but GS gets to deduct the expense. Yay!
Not to put words in @Papasan’s mouth but he was quoting from the Robert Reich blog entry he linked. The quote sounds pretty inflammatory out of context but the blog is worth a read.
How is this not financial terrorism?
Oh, wait, this is financial terrorism against consumers, rather than large corporations. Got it. All better.
Everything is normal; move along.
Question for the crowd: should we, if we could, abolish the concept of the limited-liability corporation? Are they anything more than a mechanism for wealthy people to externalise their losses?
Interested in both sides on this. What do we give up if we do this, and would it be worth the cost?
Yes, I read that too. My point was that I’m questioning whether this goal will even be fulfilled.
Looking at that dial, there is plenty of room to turn. Looks like the max 16?
but then there’s no 1 either.
yes and yes. We give up the ability for individuals to fuck over the rest of society because, you know business. Worth the cost of businesses being forced to be responsible for their actions? Yeah sounds about right.
I’ve been a member of an LLC. I suspect the vast majority of LLCs are like mine was. 1-3 people who are trying to grow a small business. We never made any money at it but it did give us opportunities that, without one, we wouldn’t have had.
Simple things from the ability to access a bank as a business may be difficult or impossible to achieve without an LLC. That’s why my partners and I started one. There are also other factors. If I had to take out a loan to move my business forward, I would have to risk equity in a house (in my case, one I don’t own).
I’m not saying that what we have works now. But eliminating LLCs entirely would harm small businesses more than it would harm large companies. They have the money to compensate for the change. The rest of us, not so much.
Now if I, when I was in an LLC, did something terrible as a part of my business, should I be held responsible? Yes.
Yes, you couldn’t just say, cut out LLCs without some form of business organization. The problem isn’t that you shouldn’t be able to organize a business. It’s useful to be able to have an entity that can be owned, own things, be transferred as an asset, etc. The problem comes in ascribing too many protections onto the entity. The law says that the entity is a ‘person’, but it isn’t really. It’s a construct, a machine, that only exists in the legal framework. Like a machine, it performs a function, but ultimately responsibility for the machine’s actions have to rest with the human pilots of the machine.
