431–440 of 533 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If “the big short” can explain it then the DOJ can.
As far as I remember the big short doesn't though.
edit: sometimes you are brought to justice b/c you conned the wrong people...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. But making few days in jail mandatory is a major deterrent. Then again even people texting and driving are not swayed by fines. In my region of the world a $3,000 fine is not a deterrent to many people. I say jail time would change that attitude.
In Australia we have 'demerit points', so if you rack up enough of them, you can lose your license, which takes away your right to drive a car. If you drive without a license and get caught, you have no insurance and you can go to jail as it's considered contempt of court. So the fines are no big deal to the rich here, but the right to drive is incentive enough to stop being an asshat.
I believe that because of this, the fines were made significantly higher for companies that did not identify the driver.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If they don't care about driving and they were being a shit driver then didn't the law also work? either they are forced to drive like less of an idiot or they don't drive... I don't really care if they get a professional driver - good, less dead people on the road.
Right, but then you're worried about getting bad drivers off the road, not proportionate impact. For a poor person, losing their license (and not continuing to drive anyway) is devastating and can mean the impossibility of keeping a job or even raising their kids. For a rich person, it just means they can't enjoy the pleasure of driving themselves around. You were talking about equalized impact to start with, I reall…
I am _not_ talking about equalised impact i'm talking about equalised results... the OP was suggesting that speed tickets don't stop rich people from speeding, but if you loose your license it does - that is the purpose of these laws, not to try to figure out how much punishment to deal out in relation to your personal wealth, punishment is a means to an end, not an end in itself - the end being to stop you from doing something damaging to society, in this case endangering other people's lives.
Taking away licences is an equaliser in this respect, because being rich doesn't give you more points to spend.
Licenses are for individuals, if some rich person wants to pay some _other_ individual who can actually keep their license that is fine, the law won because a safer person is driving.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, the PhD taught me to keep what I say fairly limited. On the other hand, I find generalists will say all kinds of crap that "sounds true" but they have at best a weak theory and a couple of anecdotes.
You seem to be making an argument for a weak theory with a couple of anecdotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. I'm not sure how it works in your country but in the UK too many speeding tickets and you will loose your license. The exact number depends on the severity of each offence, but we get max of 12 points over 3 years [1] so they stick with you - repeat offenders are given even stricter rules after getting their license…
So? What is stopping someone who loses their license from just driving anyway? They've already shown not to give a shit, so they'll continue driving without a license. My dad lost his license many years ago and never stopped driving. He gets arrested once in a while, doesn't stop him.
You live in a very strange country, in the UK your dad would have had his car taken away from him and crushed... and if he repeatedly found other cars to drive without a license he would probably end up in prison.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even if you think there are "bankers" (curiously, you do not identify specific bankers) who broke the law, good luck explaining to a jury exactly what anyone did that was illegal. Prosecutors who investigated 2008 came away saying that there was no evidence of criminal intent, based on the fact that they didn't break or intend to break any laws in the process of making their really stupid bets. Preet Bharara, former…
I worked in the industry. Literally, there were employees of 7-11 who stated their income as $100,000 or more in order to qualify for a home loan. This type of fraud was rampant and known by everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The American Criminal Justice system rightly faces many criticisms, especially serious charges for being used against minorities. But yes, knowing that even the most powerful person in the country is not above the law and can and is prosecuted seriously, and that scammers like Holmes and Balwani are made to pay for their crimes.... this kind of thing is certainly what makes the US unique among nations.
it is also what makes this country great. not that someone like Trump understand that. For a society to function harmoniously, it must believe that their society is just, and that those who commit crimes will face justice, whether its pusher on the street, or the President of the United States, and that, not only will justice be served, but clemency granted in equitable fashion when so deserved. For those interested,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worked in the industry. Literally, there were employees of 7-11 who stated their income as $100,000 or more in order to qualify for a home loan. This type of fraud was rampant and known by everyone.
Are you implying that the bankers should go to jail for the misrepresentations made by the applicant because they didn’t exercise an “appropriate” level of diligence?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even speeding tickets or anything most normal people would find a burden are nothing to super rich. But making few days in jail mandatory is a major deterrent. Then again even people texting and driving are not swayed by fines. In my region of the world a $3,000 fine is not a deterrent to many people. I say jail time would change that attitude.
Compliance is not the goal of speeding tickets (at least in the US). You think local governments would be happy if everyone woke up one day and decided to begin fastidiously obeying all traffic laws? Putting people in jail costs money and is hence undesirable, so unless you're drag racing through a school zone or driving drunk/stoned, you're not going to jail. The view of governments in the US toward traffic enforcem…
It's the goal of the state policy authorizing them, even if it isn't the goal of the local government issuing them.