xthread: (Default)
xthread ([personal profile] xthread) wrote2011-02-21 12:47 pm

There Oughta Be A Law!

In another venue, someone argued 'the people who caused the mortgage meltdown be in jail?!'

I don't know if any of you, dear readers, happen to hold that view, but, if you do, would you be so kind as to tell me, in general terms, who you think ought to be in jail, and in specific terms, what you think they should be in jail for?

Let me note two important things at the outset: remember that lying to people is usually only against the law if you're doing so to cheat them out of money (which is why Bernie Madoff is in jail), and it's unconstitutional to make laws that make something retroactively illegal.

Got your moral outrage ready? Go!

[identity profile] electricpaladin.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 09:14 pm (UTC)(link)
I think what a lot of people are reacting to is the blatant immortality of some American business practices. We've made a system where people do whatever it takes to get ahead, regardless of what happens to anyone else. It doesn't seem that our financial leaders feel any obligation to their community, their country, or even their own employees.

It's hard to get into this topic without tripping up on some of the basic problems with capitalism - and pointing out the problems with capitalism is (*gasp!*) communism, so a lot of people shy away from it and end up sounding merely outraged.

As for myself, I don't think they should be in jail now. You're right - it's unconstitutional to make something retroactively illegal. The business practices they indulged in were legal at the time, so they're off the hook. However, I do believe that the mortgage meltdown should cause us to re-examine some of our basic assumptions about how we distribute resources in this country.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 09:23 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think they should be in jail now. You're right - it's unconstitutional to make something retroactively illegal. The business practices they indulged in were legal at the time, so they're off the hook

Mmm, that strongly suggests that you think that some set of those practices, that weren't illegal, should become so.. pray elaborate?
kest: (Default)

[personal profile] kest 2011-02-21 09:54 pm (UTC)(link)
I think that the entire tale is one of people failing in their duty to make certain things illegal, personally. And making legal things that should have stayed illegal - I don't think the Glass-Steagall act should have ever been repealed.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2011-02-21 09:59 pm (UTC)(link)
I think that the entire tale is one of people failing in their duty to make certain things illegal

Pray elaborate..

I don't think the Glass-Steagall act should have ever been repealed - When I hear Glass-Steagal, I think people are talking about the wall between commercial banking and retail banking, with perhaps a side order of retail banks only being allowed to operate at the state level, not the interstate level. Are those the particulars you have in mind, or ?
kest: (Default)

[personal profile] kest 2011-02-21 10:40 pm (UTC)(link)
I dunno, elaborating sounds like work....

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2011-02-22 05:25 am (UTC)(link)
I'm certain you're up to the task
kest: (Default)

[personal profile] kest 2011-02-22 05:30 am (UTC)(link)
The question is really how much my care that Someone is Wrong on the Internet outweighs my I Really Should Be Doing Work.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2011-02-22 05:51 am (UTC)(link)
No, no, this is an opportunity for you to show us That You Are Right. On the Internet. Way more compelling than showing someone else that they're wrong.
kengr: (Default)

[personal profile] kengr 2011-02-22 03:48 am (UTC)(link)
Do note that the practices *were* illegal (for good reason) until Bush and the Republican Congressional majority *repealed* the laws making them illegal on the grounds that they were unnecessary restrictions on business.

[identity profile] xthread.livejournal.com 2011-02-22 03:50 am (UTC)(link)
Could you be perhaps a bit more specific?