NO I am blaming the incentive/catalyst. A gun is not a catalyst for violence. murder is a crime. What crime is she referring to? I don't see anything in the quote. What wall street firms does she think have committed this crime? Not complicated stuff.
I didn't pay much attention when this was big news. Was there really anything illegal about this? I must say I was not happy about Warren being elected, but I'd be very happy if she's able to make some progress on holding these guys accountable when they break the law. Or maybe she can push for breaking up the banks!
i'm actually really glad you have me on ignore, because I want to go on record as saying this is possibly one of the dumbest statements I have ever seen.
JP Morgan was using "hedge" teams to make disproportionately large prop trading profits---> which created tons more risk for JP's balance sheet rather than removing it as "hedges" should. JP is systematically important, and given a ton of privileges as a result---access to Fed funds, one keyholder to the tri-party repo system etc.---but essentially, they were a FDIC-backed bank operating like a hedge fund when they should have been operating like a deposit bank. If this wasn't illegal at the time (technically not), it certainly should be, and will be if Dodd-Frank is implemented correctly.
What major already responded to and what I already said her contention was about. I think you're filling in too many blanks to Sen. Warren rather than focusing on her actual comments in the video.
From what I get from that quote, Warren thinks we haven't met our Wall Street Firm CEO quota yet. We need to wrangle up some of these folks and throw them in jail.....
First of all you're wrong in what you get from the quote. It isn't about a quota. The problem is that not one of the law breakers has even been taken to trial. As for your second claim, I'm not sure why you don't want criminals that broke the law to go to jail and you use rolleyeyes at that.
Let me ask you something. Why would these firms agree to pay penalties to regulators if they hadn't committed wrong doing? These firms are already admitting to wrong doing by paying the fines what Warren is questioning the regulators on isn't to go on a witch hunt but whey they are agreeing for settlements rather than going to trial.
That doesn't explain why she isn't mentioning a specific case. Why doesn't she simply say 'Why was firm X not tried for crime Y?' . She could repeat this process for every instance she feels deserved a trial. If you wanted to accuse regulators of what you say then this is obviously how you would do it. She is attacking regulators for not meeting her expected quota of wall street firms, which is shameful. Her goal is to not to shame the regulators, but to try and place blame for the economy on wall street. This is the reason she would like any old wall street firm put on trial (makes no difference who). Make a show of it and create public perception that Wall Street firms are the bad guys.
So what is Warren's "wall street CEO quota"? Because I didn't catch that part. With all that's been documented, my executive level quota is greater than 0.
I do not understand the need to recount the numerous cases where the government took a crappy deal rather than file suit and go to trial. Everybody in the room knows exactly what headline cases she is referencing. The fact that you are so stuck in this is mind boggling.
You're the one who brought flawed assumptions not backed by evidence into the discussion. I really wish you were able to incorporate facts and available evidence into your opinions, such actions might actually make you a reasonable poster.
Cherokee dissatisfied with lack of scalps. Short of fraud or theft, why should we care what banks do? Oh wait, they get in bed with government to ease lending standards and socialize risk and create one giant Too Big to Fail clusterfark. Then I care since it's my money they're playing with (really it's just legalized theft with some government middle men thrown in, ultimately the banks get our money via government force). Warren's solution of course, is to regulate/abolish risk taking, rather than let bad risk takers take a loss.
She is talking about fraud and theft. How do you not see that? Right, and then they get off paying pennies on the dollar in "penalties" to the regulators instead of being punished for their misdeeds by court findings which would actually impose punishments that might be a deterrent instead of the pittance they pay now, incorporated as CODB. You don't seem to know anything about Warren, nor do you seem to understand how wide a gulf there is between "regulating" and "abolishing" risk taking. I think Warren would be perfectly happy letting bad risk takers take the loss, as long as they didn't take down other investors to whom they lied or misrepresented the risk involved.
Warren demands more Wall Street firms be tried. She doesn't care who as long as some Wall Street firms are publicly chastised. Her quota has not been met. Shes not even shy about it. GO to another thread... It's an analysis of a quote. The only fact is what she said. Really? If you were trying to accuse someone of something you wouldn't mention an instance? I hope you don't ever represent me in a court of law.
No gulf, a regulation defines an action that cannot be taken, i.e. abolition of that action. Disagree. It's about controlling financial activity, not policing theft and fraud.
The two go hand-in-hand. A pretty sizable amount of financial activity IS theft and fraud. Case in point--- http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2009/dec/13/drug-money-banks-saved-un-cfief-claims http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Those are great examples demonstrating the need for drug legalization, but not examples of theft or fraud. Which clients were the banks defrauding or stealing from?
First of all, there is nothing shameful about wanting accountability for the destruction of our economy. Your comments are like if a sheriff says, "we have got to catch all serial killers" and then you say "Name specific people!" Also she doesn't need to place blame on wall street, the blame is already there, among other things, including Glass Stegal. They caused this. And if heads don't roll, there is nothing to stop it from happening again.
She will singlehandedly cause the financial center of the world move from New York to London. Ask yourself, do you want that?
