Who is the victim when banks steal from millions of people?
The bigger question is who are the criminals? You can't throw the building in jail, and just because a negative emergent behavior manifested doesn't mean any one person had to have taken an action rising to the level of criminal culpability.
If that is true (and I think it is) I would argue the law is wrong. It should absolutely be the case that senior executives have criminal liability for criminal behaviours that emerge under their stewardship whether or not they personally contributed to them. Either they knew about it in which case they're complicit or they didn't in which case they're negligent. The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies.
I think some care should be taken in being too reductive here. If a CEO oversees just 50 people (maybe companies should be capped at smaller sizes?) then there will be at least a 50:1 information reduction even if they spend all their working hours in 100% efficient information transfer. Moreover, in many cases I would expect the bulk of that missing information to be the more negative aspects of the business -- who wants to look bad to their superiors?
Adding to that, defaults matter. If by default a CEO is culpable then it's suddenly possible to force them into jail by simply joining as a malicious employee.
> The risk of criminal liability is also the only possible justification for the high current level of CEO pay relative to average salaries at most big name companies.
Not necessarily (I think the idea is that they're paid a lot because they bring in proportionally more profits/cashflow/etc?), but I agree it's a little fishy that a CEO can take credit for large gains and be handed a golden parachute when a company's fraud sees the light of day.
I'm curious as to why you think the state taking over temporarily would have positive effects. Would you mind elaborating?
Not only this, but term "white collar crime" has been abused to include what is properly termed "implies unwanted externalities", and so it weakens the meaning. Enron executives are not criminals simply because their industry pollutes! Nor are bankers criminals simply because their industry depends entirely on enforcing artificial scarcity and information asymmetry. Crime specifically requires breaking a law!
Another related disturbing trend that weakens the concept of "white collar crime" is the "wouldn't you gave done it, too?" argument. That is, to defend cheating or bad faith behavior by arguing that you would have done if you were in the same situation. There is a lot wrong with this kind of argument, and it is similar to "whataboutism" in that it functions as a kind of strawman that tacitly assumes egoism and moral relativism, and moreover projects that lack of principle onto the counter-party. (And if you claim you wouldn't do that, the other person can say you are posturing, etc. A very nasty rhetorical tactic indeed!
None of these effects are really new, but I think what is new is that the attention economy has as a side-effect cause an overall drop in the critical thinking skills needed in a large chunk of the population to ensure these cognitive mistakes don't become official policy. There has always been an unofficial bulwark against populism in America, comprised of the "elite" - the well educated, thoughtful, articulate, careful men and women trained in philosophy, morality, and religion, and who are wealthy enough to have time to spend on such matters. Obama was and is such a one. But apocalyptic levels of egoism and intellectual laziness has spread to all corners of our society, even, shockingly, to the elites themselves. (See: Josh Haweley).
The net effect is to weaken the notion of "white collar crime" into nothingness, which is great news for those that do it, and terrible news for the rest of us.
Not sure about this point. They're only not criminals because their industries can afford lobbyists and few others can.
To put it another way, lobbying is not illegal, therefore the fruit of the lobbying, to make something legal that should not be, is also therefore allowed. But this (roughly speaking, campaign finance reform) is another issue that, like white collar crime, is too abstract to produce outrage, and therefore, too weak to produce enough votes for change (as Bernie discovered).