Too big to prosecute

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, Apr 1, 2013.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010

    So we have too big to fail, and too big to prosecute. What purpose, exactly, does international banking, or even interstate banking, in the U.S., serve? Sure, it was annoying if you lived in a small state in the U.S., and, if you needed a house loan, sometimes there was exactly one bank. If they refused you, no loan. But, the world has gone from that to the other extreme. Surely it makes small transactions more efficient and loans more available. But, the downside is that you just can't rely on the market to punish mismanagement, because the cost of a failure is enormous to all of us, and that creates large costs for taxpayers, while rewarding overly risky behavior on the part of the banks. What to do?

    How about once again separating consumer and investment banks, and, just arbitrarily limiting the size of deposits of the consumer banks, and, limiting the size of the overall loan portfolio of all banks? We have to set some arbitrary limits to protect ourselves.
  2. VulchR macrumors 68020


    Jun 8, 2009
    The failure to prosecute individuals at banks who have committed fraud or other forms of illegal behaviour is one of the worst aspects of the current economic situation. Various banks have been found to have broken the law in the UK and the banks have been fined hundreds of millions of pounds. Yet one rarely hears in a news story who the responsible bank officials were, nor are they ever prosecuted. Moreover, the shareholders in banks never seem to go after the corrupt former employees who have cost them so much money in fines. Oh wait, in the UK the taxpayers are the shareholders in many of the banks because they failed....

    In other news, a relative of mine got caught up in the London riots, walked hands-in-pockets into a store that was being looted, to a quick look (10 secs or so), and decided to leave the scene without taking a single thing or causing any damage whatsoever (which, by the way, was explicitly acknowledged by the prosecutor in court). The sentence for this crime was 3 years.

    One rule for the rich. Another for the poor.
  3. Happybunny macrumors 68000

    Sep 9, 2010
  4. Sydde macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2009
    I say we should have a constitutional amendment in the US to take the money out of money. Any business the manages money (banks, brokerages, mutual funds, insurance companies) may only operate as a non-profit that may not extract more than 3% of its revenue stream for overhead. And all non-profits must maintain wide open books (including churches).
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    May 5, 2010
    United Kingdom
    It would be much better if banking was governed by a public (government) monopoly. My logic is a good government would never engage in risky financial behavior, therefore any damage caused by risky decisions in smaller banking firms wouldn't damage the economy because they are simply that small and would be dwarfed by the government-run bank.

    But that isn't enough. Governments all around the world gave up their authority and control over markets in the 80s and 90s to the point where the markets themselves are now holding us to ransom. It would be significantly better if the "market" (whatever this all-powerful-magical entity is) was reined in again and was shown that the people who really control the economy are the citizens (represented through government).

    As a starting point, what the Federal Government should do is break up these banks and cap how big each can get.
  6. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816


    Feb 11, 2010
    Your suggestions sound boring. I like it. I would love to see financial services viewed once again as boring, as it was when I was young.

Share This Page