The US is definitely in a weird place. On the one hand, financial deregulation allowed the greed on Wall St to cause the 2008 global meltdown, and no real regulations have been put (back) in place to stop the next one. But, on the other hand, we have the government regulating things like the size of sugary drinks.
The trend seems to be this: more regulation on people and less on corporations. That is a disturbing trend, for sure. Unfortunately, even though I'm a liberal, I feel that neither party will make this better in the short or long term.
No, but by the same token, it's hardly the case that all business leaders in a capitalist society are crooks. This is just particularly galling because it's so blatant and because they're basically saying "yeah, we're guilty" and still no one is being punished.
I believe unfettered from regulations, transparency and oversight, this is what capitalism devolves to.
But we're not in a system that's unfettered from regulations, transparency and oversight. At least not in the sense that we don't have a "government" that purports to provide those things. But the current system obviously doesn't work, so I'm not sure how more government, bureaucracy, rules, regulations, etc. are going to fix anything, when it's clear that certain groups that break the law with (near) impunity.
I'm a liberal, but I hate too much regulation. I do think, however, the pendulum has swung very far in the lack of the features I mentioned above.
I think lack of enforcement (which I attribute to cronyism and corruption) are more then problem than lack of rules, and laws, and regulations. This is one (but not the only) reason I am so skeptical of government, because the more power you grant it, the more there seems to be temptation for it to devolve, along with the "titans of industry", into this quasi-fascist, corrupt, cronyist system. sigh
Times like these, I tend to think it almost doesn't matter what political ideology one believes in... you almost just have to accept that the system is always going to decay and become corrupt eventually, and you just have to scrap the whole thing, throw it out and start over.
But we've cross a line. On this side of the line, we are in grave risk of the type of thing that happened in 2008.
I phrased it in a black and white way, but this type of thing is never black and white. It's a continuum and as I said, we're too far to one side right now, for the corporate side of things.
They break the law with impunity because prosecutors know that, due to out of date and/or weakly stated rules and legislation, they would never get a conviction - an indictment and trial would waste everyone's time, money, and reputation. Because the laws are still not worded well enough to overlap perfectly with the crimes being committed. Hence more legislation and rules.
Regulations worked: it was when we unravelled existing regulation that things went belly up in almost exactly the same way they had gone belly-up the time before, inspiring the regulation in the first place. Cause-and-effect are a bitch sometimes.
But it's still a horrendously complex thing to do, a revolution doesn't really do much other than bring the complexity level down for a while till all the lessons are learned again and the same problems resurface with new actors.
I find it puzzling that you support more government involvement despite government directly funding a company you consider fraudulent.
In my ideal fantasy world, it is managed with some version of chaos monkey that randomly kills companies to see if the economy crashes ;-)
Isn't this more a case of state capitalism, or corporate capitalism, or just plain corporatism?
I keep seeing the word "capitalism" used but rarely with any assigned definition, as if there were but one universal and agreed-upon meaning.
Me, I see these kinds of shenanigans more as an indictment of mixed economies and statism.
This is human nature and has to do with the culture of lrage organisations, and has nothing whatever to do with capitalism per se.
See the sec going after goldman for example.
Further, the govt in many cases has been co-opted or convinced that should they go after these guys, the economy would collapse. I believe the state wide cases against the mortgage companies foreclosure mills was a close example.
I don't have the details on the tip of my fingers anymore, but in essence the mills were getting sued in every state, and were negotiating.. Perhaps to get the suits bundled together I think. At which point they introduced a clause which stated that they would not be sued for anything else after this case, on this matter.
Essentially protecting them from further prosecution/investigation. If it weren't for a handful of DAs who said no, particularly the NY DA office, it would have passed.
And then there's regulatory capture and resources being reduced to investigative bodies.
I used to follow this mess for a while, and there are a lot of prosecutions and maneuvers and counter maneuvers going on.
If you are wondering why they aren't being sued I suggest doing some research, rollingstone alone will have some great articles, and if you would like the big picture blog, carries some old articles, and is always tracking the crap the finance industry is pulling.
There is a lot going on - make no mistake. It's just that the govt really is the underdog, and is sadly the first one to get bashed on HN.
Anyway, I also find your profanity-laden vitrol unbecoming of discussion on this site.
EDIT: I guess it's now considered a sin to state an easily-verifiable truth and ask for polite discourse.
What? We solved this problem a long time ago. Corporations are beneficial because they provide liability protection to the employees. That's it.
In the case of fraud, we decided the corporate veil should be lifted.
So all you have to do is go through each individual in the corporation, see what laws they broke, and go after them. It's very straightforward.
The problems occur when the corporations received ungodly amounts of money from the government, when a government "appoints" individuals to positions within the corporation, and when there's quite a bit of collusion between the corporate entity and the government.
At that point, the government has very little incentive to prosecute and the corporate entity has even more incentive to commit fraud.
Anyway, you say something like "go through each individual in the corporation, see what laws they broke, and go after them" as though it's easy. In practice prosecutors have a hard time doing this even when they want to for the reasons I just said. Some of the Enron guys were acquitted by a jury, for example.
Yes, which should lead one to question whether or not a State created legal fiction like a "corporation" should exist to protect individuals from responsibility for their actions.
Anyway, I also find your profanity-laden vitrol unbecoming of discussion on this site.
That's too bad, but I'm not changing the way I go about things. If pg were to post and say "profanity is no longer allowed here," then I'd have a decision to make, but otherwise, I choose my words to suit the situation at hand and to suit my personality.
No, being an An-Cap does not necessarily mean a "profit at all costs mentality." Anarcho-Capitalism, as an ideology, embraces the idea of private property rights, enforcement of contracts, and rejects fraud as a mechanism for achieving one's ends.
Some of these crooks may have chosen the An-Cap label for themselves, but I damn sure don't claim them, FWIW. And neither do most of the other An-Caps I know.
It sounds like you've already made up your mind that it could only be that way, but see my response above if you are actually interested in some more considered discussion of the topic.
I'll just say that I have at least as much faith that people can voluntarily and peacefully reach a workable agreement without using a construct like "The State" as I am that they can do so by using such a construct. In either case, human nature is the ultimate limiting factor.. the State will never be more morally pure, or have more of conscience, etc., than the people who constitute it, IMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard
However, I don't feel it does a very good job. It basically devolves into private security provided a la mafia protection money or what's been seen in Sao Paolo / Rio de Janeiro with the cops enforcing payments from the populace for keeping the riff-raff out, while running their own schemes. Likewise, I can very much see the whole law system being subverted to benefit those providing the most cases (thus helping the bottom line) or benefiting a certain plaintiff over another, like with the eastern district of Texas handling so many patent cases.
Overall, the response seems incredibly wishy-washy with little thought paid to the ways the system can be significantly subverted.
Wouldn't a anarcho-capitalist demand that a market loser like Citi pay the price?
This by the same guys who helped slowly get all the checks and balances to prevent precisely their behavior, removed.
It was the government that continued the existence of a terrible system because the most vulnerable were held hostage by the financial institutions. Which are now once again slowly fighting to get their rules re instated.
This shit is what gives capitalism a bad name... I'm as much a proud anarcho-capitalist, Ayn Rand reading, Ludwig von Mises quoting, Gary Johnson supporting libertarian as the next guy, and it pains me to get beat up for believing in capitalism because of these crooks at Citi and BoA, when nobody is being punished for their fraud. Capitalism does not inherently entail accepting fraud like this, but every time these asshats get away with this kind of behavior, it reinforces all the negative images that people have about capitalism.
If we're going to accept the idea that government (or something like government) is to protect property rights and enforce a "rule of law" that protects against this kind of fraud, then our government needs to step the %$!# up and prosecute some of these assholes.