[video=youtube;JirCbm7fz_8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JirCbm7fz_8[/video] All the incidents mentioned in the video are real incidents. They aren't conspiracy theories or wild speculation, they actually happened. Little to no forceful reprimand was given to the transgressors, and this is what happens when you actually get caught. Imagine what those people WHOM YOU HAVEN'T CAUGHT YET are doing. By looking at these incidents and many others like it, you come away with the opinion that these thefts, corruptions, and white-collar crimes are no surprise to anyone but us, the common public. You can not move that much money without anyone knowing, just like it is impossible for drug dealers to move billions of dollars worth of drugs throughout the border, or for no one to be able to track such a massive amount of money to it's source. Opinion...duh. People know these crimes are going on, they always have, and the reason why nothing really happens to these guys is not simply that they are too big to fail, but that they are to valuable to certain people who profit from it. The economy isn't really going to get better. It's predictable at this point. Everything will move along as if it's alright until another major financial incident happens. It will be brought to trial, either dismissed or given a light sentence, and then you never hear of it again. Or sometimes you do. Sometimes the same company, bank, or whatever does bad stuff over and over again...but they get away with it and are generally allowed to continue business as usual.
upside-down cake, You point out an apparent, gaping flaw in the capitalist structure of the US economy. Without a doubt, it's unfair that bankers and executives in charge of huge sums of capital can manipulate the system in a way that provides sources of income that the less privileged could never hope to obtain. I wouldn't go as far as saying that these people are crooks or white-collar criminals because they have either found a way around the set legal structure or have invented a new way to build capital that most people wouldn't understand anyway (such as in the case of derivatives and the mortgage backed securities that cast us into the financial crisis). So my question to you is, regardless of how you feel about the people unfairly profiting from the system, how should we go about fixing "the problem with our economy?"
You asked the OP but I'd like to give an answer: "the people unfairly profiting from the system" is not to be disregarded; it needs to be addressed by trial. Nothing less can repair the damage and fix the problem.
imray- While I do agree that we need to recognize those who unfairly profited from the system, how would putting those who only acted in their legal right, whether it was moral or not, on trial solve the problems with our economy? Addressing these people would surely give us case and point situations to which we could refer when addressing the issues with the economy, but does legally punishing people who didn't really break the law advance our condition? If anything, that seems like an injustice to the system of due process that we have in order. In other words, what it seems to me like you are suggesting is simply making examples of people who took advantage of the system in order to, more or less, scare people from doing it again. That doesn't suggest any sort of solutionism, merely retribution. What I'm trying to figure out is what the route of what you perceive to be the problem with the economy is so that we may discuss ways in which we can fix the system so that this isn't even an issue.
Since there was no trial (only congressional inquiries I believe), how can we (the public) know that executives at AIG for example, "acted in their legal right" before the crash of 2008? Of course, legally punishing people who didn't really break the law does not advance our condition. But how do we know that's true unless a trial is held? I believe I'm suggesting upholding the credibility and sustainability of our system of justice; if executive level crimes are committed and overlooked (ie. the crash of 2008 ), we can expect more executive level crimes will be committed. I perceive the problem with our economy to be crony capitalism. I think of it as the marriage of corporations and government. The result is that the illegitimate corporate person gets representation; real persons get no (or very little) representation. So, I'm basically saying that the Corporate Person must die if real persons are to get economic representation.
The corporate person was given political life by the Supreme court. But, as a person, the corporation should have the same limits as a person. The same should apply to unions, and to any other special interests. We changed campaign contribution limits before, lets do it again: 1. No PAC's, no "issue" ads. 2. Limit contributions to only those politicians that you can vote for (or in the corporation / union / special interest case, the politicians that cover the district where there headquarters are located). 3. Lower contribution limits to $1000 per politician. 4. Eliminate the paid lobbyist position. 5. Eliminate gifts to politicians, and the family of politicians 6. Politicians, or regulators, that work for corporations, unions, and special interests after their term, must be paid the same as anyone else that does the same job.
imray- I think I get what you're saying now, and to a point I don't think it would be a bad idea to try these people simply to hold them responsible for any crimes they may have committed that would have lead to their benefit at the expense of the system, although I don't quite agree that the Corporate Person needs to die... In the system we have today, leaders of corporations can in fact be held accountable for crimes that their companies commit, so it's not as if corporate people are able to go around the law, unless of course their leaders don't mind going to jail. Perhaps trials for the executives at any institutions that were lying about their insolvency and highly-leveraged positions would be appropriate. Then we could have closure on what actually happened behind the crash and how we should go about making sure it doesn't happen again. Not amused- I'm not sure that your sixth suggestion is legal. If someone has attained popularity through an election or a public position, that makes them more of an asset to a company or union or special interest group, and that in itself would drive the demand for them to be a part of the group, thus commanding a higher salary. What I think would be illegal about that would be the regulation of what a company pays its employees, which is far out of the government's right.
It probably is. Can you come up with a better suggestion how to keep incentives for civil servants aligned with the public, and not special interests.
Too big to fail has become too big for trial. Senator Elizabeth Warren: [video=youtube;mavB1lbtIow]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mavB1lbtIow#![/video]
Gangster Bankers: Too Big to Jail http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/gangster-bankers-too-big-to-jail-20130214#ixzz2L416XoAd
Sadly I feel we are so far into this problem it will be nearly impossible to fix. We are printing and borrowing money like crazy people, out debt is growing daily and on top of that no one really seems to interested in stopping it. In 4 years when Obama leaves office, it will be at a point where we are drowning. This country is a machine, and like a machine, In order to fix it you need to turn it off. Lowing wages of politicians will not make a dent in our issue. We need to turn our economy off so we can fix it.
While we are in this situation, the economy we have is still working like its normal. We are still pumping money into our dying system. We need to stop to flow to everything we don't absolutely need. Regardless, it will be impossible to repay everything we owe.
The problem is the government isn't punishing the guilty. Not just the right, all the government (what did Obama, Reid and Pelosi do when they had total control - virtually nothing). Even the regulators did nothing. The question to ask is why?
max keiser is a nut case [video=youtube;QCM7rMIqxmk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCM7rMIqxmk[/video]
Most of these firms are investment banks. They invest the money people entrust them. This includes your pension funds. Have you even wondered what they do with all that money you save up for your pension? It gets invested in the stock market with all the risk that follows. You get 4% per year, if you are lucky. But stocks give 10% on average. Who scores the last 6%? The investment banks and the bank holding your pension fund. Because you let them. Or maybe you are forced into some retirement fund via your union? You did not have a choise in the matter? Tough luck. This is what you get for letting other people make decisions for you. All this happend to me. Stupid union (that I was not even a member of) decided that all employees should have their retirement fund in this one bank. Then came 2008 and the bank lost so much money on the stock market that there was not enough money to pay everyone, should they want their money out. To avoid a run on the mutual pension fund, they had to adopt a special 5% fee on people taking their money out. I would have done it anyway, if I could. But my pension is locked, I can only get it when I retire. They also dumped the anual intrest rate from 4 to 2%. 2 snotty percent! That's not even enough to keep up with inflation. I also have to pay anual fees. I'm lucky if my pension don't actually shrinks! And that is why I don't save up on my pension anymore. I save and invest the money myself! Everybody should do the same. Screw the investment banks and their yuppie smart-ass BMW-driving investors and screw the pension funds, the biggest rip-off ever. Always remember, kids: Don't let other people (*)(*)(*)(*) around with your money!
i don't think it's necessarily bad to let someone else handle your investments you just have to be able to trust them explicitly and be certain they know what they're doing
