Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

asktrim.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 159 posts

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#121

Post by qyv »

Trundle wrote: post #108
grzm wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're implying that those punishments are wrong. What would be justice in your eyes for the three crimes described? To mine, the proportionality seems more than a little out of whack. - Stolen TV (let's say $1000 burglary) - Stolen car (let's say $15,000) - $500MM fraud

Mostly I'm implying that your argument doesn't hold weight. You don't throw someone in prison because if you don't there's a double standard with some other offence. You throw them in there because the crime they committed warranted it. I'll play anyway for funzies though. First offence? All 3 should be a non-bankruptable fine with a floor that also scales with historical earnings and wealth. I can't give specific nu…

I'm curious, so what do you do if the fine is never paid?

ETA: IS a non-bankruptable fne proportional if the fraud actually bankrupted many others? What if the consequence of the fraud on said victims then led them to further crimes which led them to a ruined life of pverty and squalor? Is a non-bankruptable fine still proportionate? What if it led to suicide, or armed robbery, or even murder...

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#122

Post by Qwertious »

conanbatt wrote: post #76
enraged_camel wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Fine. Then the company should get the "death penalty" and be liquidated. Exactly. After all, corporations are people right? So let's actually treat them like we treat people.

You kill people that rob other people? Where are you from?

In theory, we would put the company in jail. However, this isn't possible.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#123

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

wheelerwj wrote: post #17
tswartz wrote: post #9

I appreciate that Warren didn't let Stumpf talk his way out of taking any responsibility for the actions of his employees and made a clear argument as to why he should be held accountable. Unfortunately, it seems the primary reason he resigned was because the public outrage was loud enough. It seems that until CEOs are personally held accountable via fines or prison (as Warren suggests) we won't see a very big change…

Bullshit he resinged! at 63, he's the oldest ceo of all the top 5 banks. Stumpf did't resign, he retired!

He still serves on the board of the Financial Services Roundtable. If he were younger, he'd likely take a break for a few years while doing some silent investing. After everything had blown over, it's not unlikely that he would be welcomed back into the fold.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#124

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

forgetsusername wrote: post #63
anigbrowl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? The outcome was entirely predictable, and there is no way that a CEO of one of the country's largest banks doesn't understand the basic concept of economic incentives shaping people's behavior. Nothing personal because I'm sure you didn't intend to make things worse for everyone, but your attitude is exactly what's wrong with the US and with capitalism in general - the notion that once an organization is suf…

> Why not? Because prison is barbaric, and expensive and should be saved for hardened criminals. Nothing personal, but it's people like you who think throwing people in prison some kind of societal solution that we have overflowing prisons of petty criminals.

The systemic damages done by someone at that level outweighs anything a hardened criminal done. Yes, $500MM in fraud caused magnitudes more misery and suffering to society, as a whole, than one murder. That kind of widespread damage has an untold number of ripple effects, pushing some people at the margins over the edge, breaking up marriages, causing people to drink and/or take narcotics, etc. It's hard to see, but it's like an armed robbery multiplied by 50 million.

In this instance, prison would actually serve as a deterrence.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#125

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc »

jnbiche wrote: post #45
henrikschroder wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO can't know what every last person in the organization is doing, but they should be incented to make it their business to a culture in place that doesn't permit this Where I'm from, there's a group af crimes such that if an employee at a company does them, the CEO will absolutely go to jail, even if they knew about it or not. For example, if your company produces toxic sludge as a byproduct, and someone at t…

> For example, if your company produces toxic sludge as a byproduct, and someone at the company dumps it in nature instead of properly taking care of it, it's jailtime. That's a kind of criminal collective responsibility, which I find repugnant whether it's a mother in Palestine being held criminally responsible for her son suicide bomber, or it's a CEO being held criminally responsible for the wrongdoings of some lo…

I'm honestly morally conflicted here. I reflexively agree with you. However, true justice doesn't exist. Our legal system exists for social and economic stability, not for seeking justice.

(Semi-rantThe American justice system has Libra wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents objectivity, in that justice is or should be meted out objectively, without fear or favour, regardless of money, wealth, fame, power, or identity. At its core, it's unjust. I've personally experienced it. As an engineer, I have a decent amount of wealth. Because of that, (and after doing lots of research), I was able to hire a well-renowned attorney who had my case dismissed. It wasn't necessarily the barrister's legal ability, it was his personal relationships with the court and specifically the DA.

There were a number of cases before mine. Many either had the defendant representing themselves or represented by a public defender. A number of them received harsh sentences for allegations that weren't as serious as I faced. All of them took the plea deal(which is itself unjust. It effectively punishes you for seeking a trial by jury) because they simply could not afford decent legal representation. The public defender had a stack of manila folders up to his eyeballs. It was obvious he didn't have the resources to mount an effective defense.

I guess it makes sense in a capitalist country that you get the justice you pay for. But I came to accept that it's not about justice. The only reason Madoff had the book thrown at him is because he ripped off a lot of rich and powerful people. Maybe if Stumpf were railroaded into a max federal prison, it would serve as an effective deterrence...unjust for him, but for the greater good of society.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#126

Post by hollerith »

anigbrowl wrote: post #79
zodiac wrote: post #49

I watched Stumpf testify in front of the Senate Banking Committee, and while I agree that (from what I saw) he should be held accountable, what I don't understand is why the right venue for it is the Senate instead of the Judiciary. Warren clearly thinks that Stumpf wasn't just doing a bad job, but that what he did and didn't do was criminal in some way (eg the talk of jail time, comparisons to Enron in the article).…

It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming. I agree that it would be better if the judiciary took on this case. Unfortunately Congress holds the power of the purse and that effectively means it can keep the DoJ on a much shorter leash than most people appreciate. Also, sadly, the complexity of litigation means that if it goes to court Wells Fargo could just keep the proce…

>It's fair in that the Senate can't impose any penalty on him other than a public shaming.

They can compel him to answer questions, and those answer can then be used by prosecutors.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#127

Post by hatmatrix »

adekok wrote: post #37

What do the libertarians say about this theft? While I understand the idea of the free market, I don't see how that would have protected the consumer in this case. The CEO has millions of times the power of the average consumer, and can harness thousands of people to his agenda. The consumer is left to either (a) pay the "idiot" tax of being stupid enough to sign up for a thieving bank, or (b) rely on the government…

It isn't a truly free market if there is information asymmetry between consumer and corporation. Therefore, government intervention should be considered acceptable to even things out.

Re: How Elizabeth Warren Took Down the CEO of Wells Fargo, and Why It Matters

#130

Post by dnautics »

hatmatrix wrote: post #127
adekok wrote: post #37

What do the libertarians say about this theft? While I understand the idea of the free market, I don't see how that would have protected the consumer in this case. The CEO has millions of times the power of the average consumer, and can harness thousands of people to his agenda. The consumer is left to either (a) pay the "idiot" tax of being stupid enough to sign up for a thieving bank, or (b) rely on the government…

It isn't a truly free market if there is information asymmetry between consumer and corporation. Therefore, government intervention should be considered acceptable to even things out.

there are is never not information asymmetry, so this philosophy would become an excuse to make government intervention in all cases. The next conundrum is how to define 'evening things out', and if you can't imagine that power being misused, you have either a poor imagination or very little knowledge of history.
Post reply on HN