Should banks be able to constantly pay their way out of trouble?

[Andylusion]

The severity of the crime doesn't change based on a your income. The idea that someone who is a doctor should be fined a $500 for a $50 offense, is not logical, or moral I would say.

Fines are meant to be a deterrent. A $400 ticket means nothing to a rich person, but it could turn a poor person's life upside down for a while. Why should rich people not have to fear fines for misbehavior?

So to be perfectly honest, I think most (possibly not all) but most are not intentional efforts to defraud the SEC and violate laws.

With all the money and lawyers banks have I find that hard to believe.

Again, you can't just have arbitrary punishment for crime, based on how much money the target has.

Fines needs to actually be deterrents to people that break laws.

That's not how our system works.

It could, at least when it comes to the banks, and I think that'd be just fine. I see what you're saying; I just disagree with a lot of it.

Enron had all the money and lawyers too. Didn't help them.

And no, if our system of justice is now an arbitrary system based not on what you did wrong, but rather who you are... then it is no longer a system of justice.

 

[WheelieAddict]

We should just have another great depression next time.

Case and point right here. Someone operating under the myth that bank bailouts, saved the economy.

This is exactly why corporate welfare exists, is because of people operating under this ideology.

We should just have a great depression next time.

Case and point right here. Someone operating under the myth that bank bailouts, saved the economy.

This is exactly why corporate welfare exists, is because of people operating under this ideology.

Without the bank bailouts what would have happened with the economy?

It would have recovered, just like it did in Iceland, and Estonia, and likely would have recovered faster.

Why?

Because part of the reason the asset market was constantly stuck in a state of flux, was because no one knew exactly what the government under Obama would do.

Banks with "troubled asset" refused to sell off those assets, believe they might get a bailout.

Say you have a car that you want to sell, that has a broken motor. Do you sell the car for whatever you can, and move on with your life? Or do you hold onto it, hoping that someone will pay you full price for a junker?

No one in a free-market is going to hold onto junk, hoping that someone will eventually think "Yeah I'll pay you full price for that garbage there".

Yet that is exactly what all the banks did, and no one could figure out why. Well the answer is obvious. Because Obama was pushing his crappy bailouts, that as part of the deal, was the Federal Reserve paying top dollar for toxic assets. Why would you sell garbage at a loss... if you have some brainless fool in the government, spending tax payer money to buy that garbage at retail prices?

Yeah, the economy would have recovered just fine without any bailout, and likely even better.

2 economists imagined a financial crisis without stimulus or bailouts. It’s … ugly.

 

[Confounding]

Enron had all the money and lawyers too. Didn't help them.

I guess their corruption was just too blatant to be defensible.

And no, if our system of justice is now an arbitrary system based not on what you did wrong, but rather who you are... then it is no longer a system of justice.

You're exaggerating the ramifications income based fines would have on our justice system. A fine is supposed to hurt. If it doesn't hurt then it's not a deterrent. What's the point of having the fine at all if it's not a deterrent? Do you at least acknowledge that the wealthy don't need to worry about things like speeding/parking tickets because it's a negligible amount of money to them? Do you acknowledge that $300 means a lot more to a poor person than it does to a rich one?

 

[Andylusion]

Case and point right here. Someone operating under the myth that bank bailouts, saved the economy.

This is exactly why corporate welfare exists, is because of people operating under this ideology.

We should just have a great depression next time.

Case and point right here. Someone operating under the myth that bank bailouts, saved the economy.

This is exactly why corporate welfare exists, is because of people operating under this ideology.

Without the bank bailouts what would have happened with the economy?

It would have recovered, just like it did in Iceland, and Estonia, and likely would have recovered faster.

Why?

Because part of the reason the asset market was constantly stuck in a state of flux, was because no one knew exactly what the government under Obama would do.

Banks with "troubled asset" refused to sell off those assets, believe they might get a bailout.

Say you have a car that you want to sell, that has a broken motor. Do you sell the car for whatever you can, and move on with your life? Or do you hold onto it, hoping that someone will pay you full price for a junker?

No one in a free-market is going to hold onto junk, hoping that someone will eventually think "Yeah I'll pay you full price for that garbage there".

Yet that is exactly what all the banks did, and no one could figure out why. Well the answer is obvious. Because Obama was pushing his crappy bailouts, that as part of the deal, was the Federal Reserve paying top dollar for toxic assets. Why would you sell garbage at a loss... if you have some brainless fool in the government, spending tax payer money to buy that garbage at retail prices?

Yeah, the economy would have recovered just fine without any bailout, and likely even better.

2 economists imagined a financial crisis without stimulus or bailouts. It’s … ugly.

Those 2 economists wouldn't be the ones that said with the Stimulus package, that unemployment would be capped at 6%.... right?

 

[Andylusion]

Enron had all the money and lawyers too. Didn't help them.

I guess their corruption was just too blatant to be defensible.

And no, if our system of justice is now an arbitrary system based not on what you did wrong, but rather who you are... then it is no longer a system of justice.

You're exaggerating the ramifications income based fines would have on our justice system. A fine is supposed to hurt. If it doesn't hurt then it's not a deterrent. What's the point of having the fine at all if it's not a deterrent? Do you at least acknowledge that the wealthy don't need to worry about things like speeding/parking tickets because it's a negligible amount of money to them? Do you acknowledge that $300 means a lot more to a poor person than it does to a rich one?

Well, I mean if you are just going to give excuses for the facts.... well then that's on you.

Again, whether $300 means more to one, or less to another, isn't relevant.

In any other context, you would never use that in determination of what a punishment would be.

You would never look at a rapist, and determine the punishment based on how important virginity is to the individual.

You wouldn't go, well this girl is a prostitute, and therefore it means much less to her.......... so what?

The punishment fits the crime. Period.

 

[Confounding]

In any other context, you would never use that in determination of what a punishment would be.

You would never look at a rapist, and determine the punishment based on how important virginity is to the individual.

You wouldn't go, well this girl is a prostitute, and therefore it means much less to her.......... so what?

You are correct; it would not be used in other contexts because that would be absurd. It would not be absurd in the context I mentioned.

 

[Norman]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

Haven't seen this ever happen, unless you talk about how the government bailed the big banks out, in which case yes we got screwed.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

So first let me ask you.... if you get caught speeding, should you be allowed to pay your way out of it? Or should you be tossed in jail, or have your car confiscated, or what?

Because truthfully no one has ever been killed because of the lost money.

People die from bad drivers on a routine basis. People driving too fast, kill people all the time. So every speeding ticket should result in prison time, right?

Surely you are more interested in penalizing people for violations that cause death, than violations that don't.

Of course there is a difference.... in that people routinely accidentally go over the speed limit, for a number of reasons. Some just thinking about other things, and accidentally start moving too fast. Others simply don't notice the speed limit sign and don't realize the speed limit has changed.

Similarly, banks do the same thing all the time. They often break rules, they don't even know exist. I wish I had saved a picture.... years ago the SEC used to sell all the banking laws, in literal books. The last time I looked it up, it cost $1,000 to order the complete set, of over 14 books, that were 500 pages each, filled with the endless rules and regulations governing banking.

I read once that every single driver on the road today, breaks a motor vehicle rule on a daily or weekly basis. There are simply so many laws, you can't help but break one all the time.

How then can a bank, with millions of laws, avoid breaking a law?

I remember reading an interview with a member of the SEC, that said that if the SEC were to rigidly enforce all the banking laws, there wouldn't be a bank left open in the US.

So, in a nutshell, that is the fundamental reason that banks can just pain heavy fines.

Usually, the only time they send people to prison, is when they can prove direct attempts to mislead or falsify information given to the SEC.

There are some other reasons. Some 'rules' implemented by the SEC, are vague, and are subject to interpretation, both by the banks, and by the SEC.

If you go read just the titles of SEC public statements, it's an endless list of rule changes. There were 10 rule changes in April, and 12 in March.

When rules can be changed so often, how can a bank possibly perfectly follow the rules? Even when you get one rule down, the next month the interpret it differently, and now you are violating it.

See the problems? This is why banks just pay fines constantly.

By the way, this is why some fines are not very large, and others are huge.

The SEC is charging fines constantly, and criminal suits ALL THE TIME.

If you go look at the SEC site right now, I counted 8 different charges filed, in just May ALONE. Just May, and May isn't even over yet.

Sometimes the fines seem small, because they charged them fines for a dozen different things, before they got to the one that you hear about.

SO..... there are tons of reasons.

/——/ I was a sales rep for a legal publishing company that sold those books to banks and law firms. They were more than $3,000 a year to buy and subscribe to back in 1998. They were updated weekly. When it all went online, they were updated daily and the subscription price went up. I made a great living until the internet turned it into a commodity.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

Prepare for more:

As Congress approves Dodd-Frank repeal, consumer advocates fire back

Finally, Dodd-Frank was an expensive piece of crap.

Nice. No more govt. bailouts next time then.

I'm all for that. Conservatives were against bailouts from the very start. In fact, the Conservative caucus in the House, proposed an alternative plan, that specifically would not bail out the banks. The left-wingers and unfortunately Bush, both shot it down.

Left-wingers to this day, claim the bailouts "saved the country". No they didn't. Not even close.

/——/ Left wingers and Obozo bailed out GM and Chrysler and still take credit for their survival.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

Prepare for more:

As Congress approves Dodd-Frank repeal, consumer advocates fire back

Finally, Dodd-Frank was an expensive piece of crap.

Nice. No more govt. bailouts next time then.

I'm all for that. Conservatives were against bailouts from the very start. In fact, the Conservative caucus in the House, proposed an alternative plan, that specifically would not bail out the banks. The left-wingers and unfortunately Bush, both shot it down.

Left-wingers to this day, claim the bailouts "saved the country". No they didn't. Not even close.

/——/ Left wingers and Obozo bailed out GM and Chrysler and still take credit for their survival.

Those sneaky bastards can take credit for getting Bin Laden also.

 

[Cellblock2429]

So first let me ask you.... if you get caught speeding, should you be allowed to pay your way out of it? Or should you be tossed in jail, or have your car confiscated, or what?

I think speeding tickets should depend on your level of income. A millionaire is not worried about a $400 speeding ticket. However a $250,000 speeding ticket might make the ****** think twice. Maybe the bank fines need to go waaaaaay up.

How then can a bank, with millions of laws, avoid breaking a law?

Do you believe it's typically the case that banks only accidentally break the rules, or is it more likely that they usually know they're doing it and take a gamble with getting caught? What's the worst that could happen? A fine that doesn't hurt, that's what.

So, in a nutshell, that is the fundamental reason that banks can just pain heavy fines.

Usually, the only time they send people to prison, is when they can prove direct attempts to mislead or falsify information given to the SEC.

There are some other reasons. Some 'rules' implemented by the SEC, are vague, and are subject to interpretation, both by the banks, and by the SEC.

If you go read just the titles of SEC public statements, it's an endless list of rule changes. There were 10 rule changes in April, and 12 in March.

When rules can be changed so often, how can a bank possibly perfectly follow the rules? Even when you get one rule down, the next month the interpret it differently, and now you are violating it.

See the problems? This is why banks just pay fines constantly.

By the way, this is why some fines are not very large, and others are huge.

The SEC is charging fines constantly, and criminal suits ALL THE TIME.

If you go look at the SEC site right now, I counted 8 different charges filed, in just May ALONE. Just May, and May isn't even over yet.

Sometimes the fines seem small, because they charged them fines for a dozen different things, before they got to the one that you hear about.

SO..... there are tons of reasons.

A lot of what you say seems fairish, but I strongly disagree with your suggestion that banks typically just didn'r know. I also thing more severe fines should be imposed.

/——/ So if you get a speeding ticket, you’d gladly show up at traffic court with a financial statement and past income tax forms? And what if a rich guy could prove he had zero income or lost money that year? No fine or the court would have to pay the speeder? You socialists make me laugh with your simplistic solutions.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Prepare for more:

As Congress approves Dodd-Frank repeal, consumer advocates fire back

Finally, Dodd-Frank was an expensive piece of crap.

Nice. No more govt. bailouts next time then.

I'm all for that. Conservatives were against bailouts from the very start. In fact, the Conservative caucus in the House, proposed an alternative plan, that specifically would not bail out the banks. The left-wingers and unfortunately Bush, both shot it down.

Left-wingers to this day, claim the bailouts "saved the country". No they didn't. Not even close.

/——/ Left wingers and Obozo bailed out GM and Chrysler and still take credit for their survival.

Those sneaky bastards can take credit for getting Bin Laden also.

/——/ Thanks to incompetent Bush’s intel and enhanced interrogation

 

[sparky]

Banks 'break the rules'? methinks some confusion exists.....Banks MAKE the rules , .... read the Creature from Jekyll Island

The Story Behind ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island,’ the Anti-Fed Conspiracy Theory Bible

~S~

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

Prepare for more:

As Congress approves Dodd-Frank repeal, consumer advocates fire back

Finally, Dodd-Frank was an expensive piece of crap.

Nice. No more govt. bailouts next time then.

Yeah, those short-term loans were terrible.
We should let the banking system collapse, like in the 30s.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do banks only pay a fine? What do you want them to do?

I'd be okay with severe financial penalties for banks that are repeat offenders. Oh, that 40 million dollar fine doesn't scare you? Maybe a 40 billion dollar fine is in order.

That still won't scare them.

You need to put yourself in the place of the people running the company. Taking a risk doesn't harm them, because the government bailed out the banks.

You could level a $40 Trillion dollar fine on them. They would simply close, and join a different bank. The fine wouldn't be paid, and everyone would be working elsewhere.

The solution to the problem, is simple deregulation, and profit-and-loss capitalism.

How do I mean? When the banks fail.... just let them fail.

Iceland did this. All the major banks went entirely broke. The government planned to bail them out.... realized they couldn't..... and didn't. They simply failed.

When the banks failed, new banks replaced them, or they went through bankruptcy. The economy recovered, and fast. By 2010, Iceland was on the up swing, and we were still crashing.

Just let the free-market work. When the banks crash.... let them crash.

Iceland did this. All the major banks went entirely broke. The government planned to bail them out.... realized they couldn't..... and didn't. They simply failed.

It's true, banks in Iceland lost money and then didn't repay foreign depositors.
In the US, we didn't have that option, our depositors were Americans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Banks 'break the rules'? methinks some confusion exists.....Banks MAKE the rules , .... read the Creature from Jekyll Island

The Story Behind ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island,’ the Anti-Fed Conspiracy Theory Bible

~S~

That book is funny.
So full of silly errors, I'm surprised anyone can take it seriously.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

SOP for Wells Fargo.....

 

[kaz]

Ever heard one of those stories where a bank did something sketchy to make money, got busted and then got fined an amount lower than the amount of money they ripped off in the first place? Banks do this shit all the time. They use obviously corrupt means to secure large amounts of money and then get slapped on the wrist. There is no real incentive for them to stop. Should this be allowed? What's the alternative?

NO, I never heard that. Normally they are required to repay all the money and pay a fine on top of that.

What Wells Fargo did was outright fraud and their punishment was paltry in terms of impacting profits

 

[whitehall]

I wonder how Wall Street banks got away with paying about a quarter of a million dollars each to Hillary for a couple of 15 minute mystery speeches. Maybe the "investigative reporters" were on vacation at the time.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Bankers are your friend...they only want to help you