News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by e40 on Thursday June 21, 2012 @01:29PM (#4143162)
You make it sound like it's just a few crooks at Citi and BofA. I believe unfettered from regulations, transparency and oversight, this is what capitalism devolves to. 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.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by mindcrime on Thursday June 21, 2012 @02:18PM (#4143427)
You make it sound like it's just a few crooks at Citi and BofA.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by e40 on Thursday June 21, 2012 @02:43PM (#4143549)
But we're not in a system that's unfettered from regulations, transparency and oversight.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by zzzeek on Thursday June 21, 2012 @03:21PM (#4143745)
> 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.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by roguecoder on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:46PM (#4144559)
Regulation wasn't about putting people in jail: it was about requirements for stock listings and access to federal money. That's a far more significant deterrent when all the company cares about is cash.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by intended on Friday June 22, 2012 @12:33AM (#4145418)
Well, you could just fund some of the arms better, re-instate glass steagal, and then reduce the amount of funding corporations can put into elections. That would at least lead to some reduction in the ability of money to influence things.

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.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by dreamdu5t on Thursday June 21, 2012 @05:38PM (#4144331)
It's worth pointing out that the market already put Citi out of business, but government stepped in and rewarded them for fraud and interfered with the market. Citigroup was insolvent in November 2008, even after receiving $25 billion in federal TARP funds.

I find it puzzling that you support more government involvement despite government directly funding a company you consider fraudulent.

Re:Woman Who Couldn’t Be Intimidated by Citigroup Wins $31 M... by roguecoder on Thursday June 21, 2012 @06:49PM (#4144569)
Because I want a continually functioning economy more than I want to punish Citi? Systematic risk is real, and should be managed on a system-wide level.

In my ideal fantasy world, it is managed with some version of chaos monkey that randomly kills companies to see if the economy crashes ;-)