I'm not sure I like the incentives that creates, though. If this is the precedent, then if you're committing financial fraud already you might as well go as big as possible, since there appears to be a cap on punishment.
I mean from mine, and im sure many other people's view, that is already mostly true. Her biggest mistake to me seems like messing with a big dog, rather than screwing over little guys that don't have millions to throw at the courts or teams of full time lawyers. If JPMorgan defrauded the same amount of money from a bunch of regular joes I doubt anybody would be in jail or even that any potential fees would come anywhere to matching the amount of money defrauded.
ah yes, so clearly we must make sure that they are even less enforced. what could go wrong? hell, Enron lost investors-- bunch of billionaire fat cats, the lot of 'em-- $75 billion... they shoulda made Kenneth Lay Chairman of the Fed! or i guess maybe he his net worth had one too many zeroes to be sympathetic... hell, Kawhi Leonhard and his uncle blatantly and deliberately broke all of the NBA salary cap rules in the way that an undercover cop asks everyone they come across if they can buy weed from them, but the Clippers are owned by Steve Ballmer, so it's apparently okay. we hate the player because of the game in everything except for sports lmao.
I'm unconvinced. Banks wield massive political power through their capital, and so get away with highway robbery all the time. 2008 financial crisis comes to mind. It seems to me that the rules are one sided and so it seems this "foundational part" of high functioning society is just guarding the highwaymen with the cityguard, when the swords should be facing the other direction.
The banks at the center of the 2008 crisis are largely international. Is your question about the entire western international finance system and all societies comprising it?
Anti fraud rules sending people to jail are what we're discussing, and the proposition that they're necessary for a high functioning society. If we have these rules, and society is not high functioning, then, it seems you and I agree, that they're not necessary for a high functioning society.
> Strong anti fraud rules (even for massive banks) are a foundational part of a high functioning society.
Sometimes it seems we're missing most of the "foundational part[s] of a high functioning society" except the ones that serve elites (which then are so sacred *and must never be questioned).
Eventually people stop caring about the elite's protections, even if that breakdown is ultimately harmful. It's like the murder of that United Healthcare CEO. His company ground down the common man's benefits in a way that probably killed thousands (at least), but we're supposed to cry for him. Betray people long enough, and they're no longer interested in holding up their side of the bargain.
If they want a high functioning society, the elites need to work harder at holding up their end of the bargain.
