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

151–159 of 159 posts

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

#151

Post by jnbiche »

anigbrowl wrote: post #62
jnbiche wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Strict liability is an old concept in law. I am not buying these claims of innocence involving a low level employee whose activities were not directed by the CEO; this fraud involved thousands of employees responding directly to a clear economic incentive that came down from the executive suite. You don't get to bring about that sort of situation and then disavow any knowledge of it. That's just an invitation to malf…

I'm actually inclined to agree with you re: Wells Fargo. But in general, I think the bar should be very high. If a single employee dumps toxic waste despite clear regulations otherwise, and a history of company enforcement, then I would very much oppose any type of criminal penalty against the CEO.

And just because something is an old concept in law doesn't mean it's right or moral.

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

#152

Post by jnbiche »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #125
jnbiche wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Our legal system exists for social and economic stability

> [your description of a horribly unjust legal system as you experienced it]

You really think the system you described is good for social stability? People aren't stupid, the ones who got the raw end of the deal noticed the same injustice you did.

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

#153

Post by Evolved »

Let's not overlook the fact that not only did the whistleblowers' concerns not get addressed[0], they were also subsequently fired for trumped up charges, AND their U-5[1][2][3][4] was also marked as well, which makes it much harder to get another job in banking as banking organizations have access to this universal employee report card as it is colloquially referred to.

[0]http://fortune.com/2016/10/18/wells-fargos-former-ceo-may-ha...

[1]http://www.wealthmanagement.com/practice-management/u5-hazar...

[2]http://www.finra.org/industry/terminate-individuals-registra...

[3]http://www.npr.org/2016/10/14/497991242/fired-wells-fargo-em...

[4]http://www.forbes.com/sites/billsinger/2011/12/15/wells-farg...

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

#154

Post by dv_dt »

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 resigned, and in his successor is from the same senior leadership team in charge during the behaviour that has gotten Wells Fargo into trouble.

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

#155

Post by filoeleven »

zodiac wrote: post #83
orsenthil wrote: post #65

Can she and other senators question and bring down Trump if he does something illegal?

Yes, Congress can impeach and try the President ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_Stat... , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_Stat... )

But the chances of that happening are slim, given that the Republicans will control both the House and the Senate, and in the end a successful impeachment requires a 2/3 majority. It could happen if he makes enough Republicans angry and/or does something illegal _that they agree should be illegal_. This would likely exclude running afoul of some business law that the current Congress enacts to specifically target his divided interests (like trying to force him to put his business in a blind trust, something that every other president has done by convention).

Then again, the establishment Republicans would probably be much more comfortable with Pence in the driver's seat, so who knows?

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

#156

Post by jdhzzz »

Meekro wrote: post #64
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…

I can't speak for all libertarians, but I consider myself a libertarian and I can make some observations about this whole situation.. 1. Those customers who were stolen from will get to participate in the mother of all class-action lawsuits. The settlement will be outlandish. Juries hate huge corporations that screw the little guy, and the lawyers on both sides know it. If you don't trust the class action to provide…

Reminds me of an anecdote from my days working at a medical device manufacturer. The sales person was responsible for assessing hospital stock of the devices they sold as hospital personnel were too busy doing actual work to do so. The sales person would take inventory and leave a purchase order for the hospital to approve. Story goes that one (some?) of the sales people for a competitor (never us) would lift a ceiling tile and chuck inventory up there. "Oh, looks like you are running low on..."

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

#157

Post by qohen »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #81
conanbatt wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Perhaps we should just ban Wells Fargo from business for a couple of years then, equivalent to a prison sentence.

* Perhaps we should just ban Wells Fargo from business for a couple of years then, equivalent to a prison sentence.*

The state of California did something like this, suspending Wells Fargo from bond-investment work, at the end of September:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-28/californi...

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

#158

Post by DINKDINK »

vonklaus wrote: post #66
DINKDINK wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference in your comparison though is the internet still works if Google goes under. If a TBTF bank goes under [1] the financial system can halt/implode. Which is the main argument to break up the banks to a level where there isn't total-system fragility. [1] due to their own reckless behavior / Capitalism on the upside, Socialism on the downside.

The economy still works if banks go down, it just gets messy. How many companies & people use gmail to communicate, google apps for biz, android, search. 40% of the internet hitting Bing would potentially overwhelm it. Keep in mind the subprime mortgage crisis was several banks. Add microsoft and google, the world would panic. Facebook sees 1/3 traffic of google. Just like a run on banks, people desperate for info wo…

>The economy still works if banks go down, it just gets messy.

This is not accurate. The _ability_ of an ISP to route packets is not affected if another ISP stops routing packets (their ability to rout packets is independent). There will be a change in bandwidth usage but not in ability. If a TBTF bank goes down, it is entirely possible that other banks have financial contracts with it that are necessary to be fulfilled for the second bank to remain operational (their ability to route financial payments is dependent)

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

#159

Post by breatheoften »

jernfrost wrote: post #86
muninn_ wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you live in the West you live in a free market right now. Asking the "libertarians" what they would do about this incident in the "free market" is a deceptive thing to say. Not only does it ignore the fact that we live in a free market, it unjustly pins the failings of the system we live in on a philosophy which has a wide array of different nuances and subgroups. Libertarians range from anarcho-capitalists, to so…

The problem is that libertarians will use the ideal about free markets to oppose any sort of sane regulation or discussion about the limits of the market. I would say markets in the US are rigged in many obvious ways, due to the outsized influence of business in American elections and the political system. So much of business regulations in the US is written by people from the very same business and people who overse…

It's so true. I have been places where governments were more effective and efficient than in the us ... Worshipping the idea that "governments can never do anything right" seems to be a self-fulfilling proposition in a democracy ...
Post reply on HN