FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Elizabeth Warren confused over how regulation deters bad banking

Elizabeth Warren confused over how regulation deters bad banking

(7:35) Elizabeth Warren expresses outrage over JP Morgan CEO, Jamie Dimon's salary i n the year he negotiated $17 billion of bank fines for illegal activity. From United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, February 2014.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (894 days ago)

Iceland imprisoned its bankers and recovered even better than we did from the great recession. If only Americans had brains and voted. Instead the stupid Americans trust their FRB to set bankers free while publishing statistics that wealth concentration in 2014 reached 54% in the hands of 3% of American families. Sam Walton's kids alone have 40%. The guillotine worked wonders in France and will return so sever the boundless greed again.

ReplyVote up (126)down (109)
Original comment

Iceland imprisoned its bankers and recovered even better than we did from the great recession. If only Americans had brains and voted. Instead the stupid Americans trust their FRB to set bankers free while publishing statistics that wealth concentration in 2014 reached 54% in the hands of 3% of American families. Sam Walton's kids alone have 40%. The guillotine worked wonders in France and will return so sever the boundless greed again.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (894 days ago)

KILL THE BANKERS!

KILL THE BANKER KIKES!

ReplyVote up (104)down (106)
Original comment

KILL THE BANKERS!

KILL THE BANKER KIKES!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (894 days ago)

17 billion! How much of that went to the people who were actually out of pocket due to JP Morgan's illegal activities? Anyone? Did anyone benefit from that money other than govt?

ReplyVote up (110)down (78)
Original comment

17 billion! How much of that went to the people who were actually out of pocket due to JP Morgan's illegal activities? Anyone? Did anyone benefit from that money other than govt?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (893 days ago)

If it wasn't for corruption, government money goes towards building roads and bridges, fighting crime and ISIS ... I'm sure if you tried, you could also think of things that government spends money on that benefit society.

That is why we need regulation and transparency in copious amounts. Corruption is the inevitable result of Libertarianism. If you let people do WTF they like, you will eventually get individuals/corporations powerful enough to buy government - just as you have in the US right now.

Size of government is a total red herring. If you make government smaller, you just make it easier for powerful individuals/corporations to do WTF they like. If you make government bigger, then you just give more power to those individuals/corporations who control government.

It always comes down to the same answer - get big money out of politics - then government will spend the the $17 billion in the interest of its voters, not its funders. Isn't that how it should be?

ReplyVote up (99)down (103)
Original comment

If it wasn't for corruption, government money goes towards building roads and bridges, fighting crime and ISIS ... I'm sure if you tried, you could also think of things that government spends money on that benefit society.

That is why we need regulation and transparency in copious amounts. Corruption is the inevitable result of Libertarianism. If you let people do WTF they like, you will eventually get individuals/corporations powerful enough to buy government - just as you have in the US right now.

Size of government is a total red herring. If you make government smaller, you just make it easier for powerful individuals/corporations to do WTF they like. If you make government bigger, then you just give more power to those individuals/corporations who control government.

It always comes down to the same answer - get big money out of politics - then government will spend the the $17 billion in the interest of its voters, not its funders. Isn't that how it should be?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (893 days ago)

Again you harp on about what I've made clear many times, Libertarianism isn't about doing WTF you like with no law at all. It's the opposite infact, you can do what ever you like as long as you do NO harm to others and, by extension, the commons. These are protected by real laws which are NOT arbitrarily changed at will by a govt. which has grown so strong that it doesn't give a damn what you the people think or want. Case in point the various Govt. whistle blowers who are being persecuted . Not to mention the most transparent govt. in history! (Sarcasm) so you have in America exactly what you wanted Walter, a liberal, Black president promising you all you've ever wanted, transparency, a chicken in every pot, finance reform etc. etc. ..how's that working out? Power is what corrupts, take away that power and ENFORCE the rule of law equally where one of the govts main mandates is to enforce that law only then will you have what you want. Just giving Govt. even more power just means more corruption and loss of every mans rights and freedoms. Corruption is what you HAVE and you have it with the most powerful govt. ever in America! You do not have a libertarian Govt. you have had only a liberal or conservative one for decades and her you are, reality defeats your argument. As for getting money out that's too simplistic and easily circumvented. Look at what the Clintons just did while Hilary was in the state dept. , Bill gets a 30 minute speech engagement for half a million dollars for company A and a month or so later she authorises something that is advantageous to that company. How are you going to police stuff like that? You can't. It's the power they are after, if you don't change that nothing WILL change. You underestimate the cunning and inventiveness of the private sector and over estimate the morals of those in office. How were roads and schools built BEFORE income taxes were brought in as a TEMPORARY measure to fund the First World War?

ReplyVote up (82)down (109)
Original comment

Again you harp on about what I've made clear many times, Libertarianism isn't about doing WTF you like with no law at all. It's the opposite infact, you can do what ever you like as long as you do NO harm to others and, by extension, the commons. These are protected by real laws which are NOT arbitrarily changed at will by a govt. which has grown so strong that it doesn't give a damn what you the people think or want. Case in point the various Govt. whistle blowers who are being persecuted . Not to mention the most transparent govt. in history! (Sarcasm) so you have in America exactly what you wanted Walter, a liberal, Black president promising you all you've ever wanted, transparency, a chicken in every pot, finance reform etc. etc. ..how's that working out? Power is what corrupts, take away that power and ENFORCE the rule of law equally where one of the govts main mandates is to enforce that law only then will you have what you want. Just giving Govt. even more power just means more corruption and loss of every mans rights and freedoms. Corruption is what you HAVE and you have it with the most powerful govt. ever in America! You do not have a libertarian Govt. you have had only a liberal or conservative one for decades and her you are, reality defeats your argument. As for getting money out that's too simplistic and easily circumvented. Look at what the Clintons just did while Hilary was in the state dept. , Bill gets a 30 minute speech engagement for half a million dollars for company A and a month or so later she authorises something that is advantageous to that company. How are you going to police stuff like that? You can't. It's the power they are after, if you don't change that nothing WILL change. You underestimate the cunning and inventiveness of the private sector and over estimate the morals of those in office. How were roads and schools built BEFORE income taxes were brought in as a TEMPORARY measure to fund the First World War?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
nsavoidscivilliberty nsavoidscivilliberty (893 days ago)

As the evolving sophistication of the internet continues to erode anonymity, privacy and expose hidden agendas of the Koch brothers, the heirs of Sam Walton and other duped libertarians bent on returning our laws to be pre Sherman Anti-Trust era and keeping estate and gift taxes voluntary we will eventually reach consensus that the same evolved internet redesign delivery of all unaccountable government. Libertarians ungratefully repudiate societal benefits that enabled them to attain a pedestal and resources to spew forth nonsense about unregulated greed being the best greed, Most four year olds can see through the sociopathic rants of libertarian perspectives. I was once a devoded Ayn Rand libertarian blinded by inherited priveledge until I witnessed first hand the lack of ethics and morals running unchecked as an accountant assisting large corporations with coverups of environmental disasters, labor abuses, and massive leaching off the middle-class tax base to subsidise the telecom and utility providers, oil producers and refiners, defense contractors, food processors, banks and drug manufacturers over 30 years with distasteful subsidies the public has no clue of burried in the Federal Register.

ReplyVote up (104)down (77)
Original comment

As the evolving sophistication of the internet continues to erode anonymity, privacy and expose hidden agendas of the Koch brothers, the heirs of Sam Walton and other duped libertarians bent on returning our laws to be pre Sherman Anti-Trust era and keeping estate and gift taxes voluntary we will eventually reach consensus that the same evolved internet redesign delivery of all unaccountable government. Libertarians ungratefully repudiate societal benefits that enabled them to attain a pedestal and resources to spew forth nonsense about unregulated greed being the best greed, Most four year olds can see through the sociopathic rants of libertarian perspectives. I was once a devoded Ayn Rand libertarian blinded by inherited priveledge until I witnessed first hand the lack of ethics and morals running unchecked as an accountant assisting large corporations with coverups of environmental disasters, labor abuses, and massive leaching off the middle-class tax base to subsidise the telecom and utility providers, oil producers and refiners, defense contractors, food processors, banks and drug manufacturers over 30 years with distasteful subsidies the public has no clue of burried in the Federal Register.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (893 days ago)

There's a lot of very confused stuff there, I'm not quite sure where to start.

I'll just take your first point "Libertarianism isn't about doing WTF you like with no law at all ..." - Libertarianism is about the rights of the individual trumping the rights of the many. The practical result is - very powerful people doing WTF they like, even if it is detrimental to the many - for example, Citizens United or the Koch brothers.

ReplyVote up (93)down (105)
Original comment

There's a lot of very confused stuff there, I'm not quite sure where to start.

I'll just take your first point "Libertarianism isn't about doing WTF you like with no law at all ..." - Libertarianism is about the rights of the individual trumping the rights of the many. The practical result is - very powerful people doing WTF they like, even if it is detrimental to the many - for example, Citizens United or the Koch brothers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (893 days ago)

WRONG! Look up any definition of Libertarianism and it will say your rights end where mine begin, it's NOT a do WTF you like philosophy AND you know it. Intereting why you keep saying this knowing it to be false. Yes the individuals rights trump the many, in the case of the individuals rights only. For example if the Koch brothers or govt. for that matter, want to build a road or a block of apartments on my land, without my consent, they can't! This gives a legal protection to the Problem of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, What's wrong with that? That would stop big business using govt. as a tool for their own ends. If they can't use the govt. to get what they want you have just taken away the reason for trying to corrupt it! As Adam Smith said so many years ago, the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee THATS the whole argument of a small govt. of which one of its few mandates is to uphold the rule of law equally.

ReplyVote up (108)down (83)
Original comment

WRONG! Look up any definition of Libertarianism and it will say your rights end where mine begin, it's NOT a do WTF you like philosophy AND you know it. Intereting why you keep saying this knowing it to be false. Yes the individuals rights trump the many, in the case of the individuals rights only. For example if the Koch brothers or govt. for that matter, want to build a road or a block of apartments on my land, without my consent, they can't! This gives a legal protection to the Problem of two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, What's wrong with that? That would stop big business using govt. as a tool for their own ends. If they can't use the govt. to get what they want you have just taken away the reason for trying to corrupt it! As Adam Smith said so many years ago, the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee THATS the whole argument of a small govt. of which one of its few mandates is to uphold the rule of law equally.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (892 days ago)

I know Libertarianism isn't a "do WTF U like" philosophy, but that is the consequence, or to be more accurate: the consequence is "powerful people do WTF they like".

If individual rights trump the many, then over time, more highly-driven power-hungry ruthless individuals will rise to positions of power, than chilled peace-loving liberal hippies. The proof is all around you, and you wouldn't expect it otherwise.

Your Koch brothers story is not reality. If the Koch brothers wanted to build a pipeline over your land, then good luck fighting them. More likely, you'll walk away happy with some extra dollars in your pocket. The Koch brothers are happy, you are happy, but everybody on the planet moves one step closer to extinction.

The "small government" argument baffles me. It seems you see government as a corrupt too-big-to-fail corporation running the country, paid from taxes. I can see why you think, after all, that is how the US government looks.

I think government is the people's tool to create a society that benefits those in it. If it is not working in the interests of the people, then it is broken and needs fixing. Size is irrelevant.

Government is where laws are made, so it's no wonder power-crazed people want control. Adam Smith didn't know about the internet when he said "the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee" . Today, it should be possible to design a system that is transparent enough for the people to vote out regulators who are overcome by the regulatee.

ReplyVote up (90)down (105)
Original comment

I know Libertarianism isn't a "do WTF U like" philosophy, but that is the consequence, or to be more accurate: the consequence is "powerful people do WTF they like".

If individual rights trump the many, then over time, more highly-driven power-hungry ruthless individuals will rise to positions of power, than chilled peace-loving liberal hippies. The proof is all around you, and you wouldn't expect it otherwise.

Your Koch brothers story is not reality. If the Koch brothers wanted to build a pipeline over your land, then good luck fighting them. More likely, you'll walk away happy with some extra dollars in your pocket. The Koch brothers are happy, you are happy, but everybody on the planet moves one step closer to extinction.

The "small government" argument baffles me. It seems you see government as a corrupt too-big-to-fail corporation running the country, paid from taxes. I can see why you think, after all, that is how the US government looks.

I think government is the people's tool to create a society that benefits those in it. If it is not working in the interests of the people, then it is broken and needs fixing. Size is irrelevant.

Government is where laws are made, so it's no wonder power-crazed people want control. Adam Smith didn't know about the internet when he said "the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee" . Today, it should be possible to design a system that is transparent enough for the people to vote out regulators who are overcome by the regulatee.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (892 days ago)

If powerful people do WTF they like then they wouldn't need to capture govt. to do it would they? You would need to be a dictator to do that and that is a whole different scenario. No individual, or individuals, can have that much power without govt. help, it's the power of govt. that allows them to do what they do, it's what you're seeing now and we don't have a libertarian govt! The Koch brothers are not libertarian, they are as neocon as Soros is neoliberal. The Koch brothers story is completely realistic where property rights are a mainstay in law, it's as simple,as arguing the property is mine and nobody can infringe upon it. If I agree to selling out to the Koch brothers then that is my prerogative as it is in any case, what's your point? We agree, Govt. should be the people's tool but you fail to look at history and the present and see that govt. always grabs more power for itself and in the end is more about working towards its own means than that of the people, it has little to do with outside money and all to do with govt. holding on to power for itself for its own benefit. As things get ugly you will see govt. turn against Wall Street and some big business to save itself, it uses those entities for its own gain, it's a symbiotic relationship but make no mistake no corporation can or will trump the govt. your point about the internet is a good one it means we as a people can vote on important matters, WE can decide, it also means again we don't need a big and powerful govt. that does as it wants, just one that has the power of the people behind it to enforce the rule of law. At the same time you need those individual property rights to prevent Mob rule and protect the weak from the strong, something I thought you would be in favour of.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

If powerful people do WTF they like then they wouldn't need to capture govt. to do it would they? You would need to be a dictator to do that and that is a whole different scenario. No individual, or individuals, can have that much power without govt. help, it's the power of govt. that allows them to do what they do, it's what you're seeing now and we don't have a libertarian govt! The Koch brothers are not libertarian, they are as neocon as Soros is neoliberal. The Koch brothers story is completely realistic where property rights are a mainstay in law, it's as simple,as arguing the property is mine and nobody can infringe upon it. If I agree to selling out to the Koch brothers then that is my prerogative as it is in any case, what's your point? We agree, Govt. should be the people's tool but you fail to look at history and the present and see that govt. always grabs more power for itself and in the end is more about working towards its own means than that of the people, it has little to do with outside money and all to do with govt. holding on to power for itself for its own benefit. As things get ugly you will see govt. turn against Wall Street and some big business to save itself, it uses those entities for its own gain, it's a symbiotic relationship but make no mistake no corporation can or will trump the govt. your point about the internet is a good one it means we as a people can vote on important matters, WE can decide, it also means again we don't need a big and powerful govt. that does as it wants, just one that has the power of the people behind it to enforce the rule of law. At the same time you need those individual property rights to prevent Mob rule and protect the weak from the strong, something I thought you would be in favour of.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (892 days ago)

"If powerful people do WTF they like then they wouldn't need to capture govt. to do it would they?" Don't you get it? Powerful people need to capture government to be able to do WTF they like, because that is where laws are made, or repealed.

You agreed with me that government is a tool. Government is the institution that makes and repeals laws, and is responsible for spending the people's money (taxes). The problem is not how big or small the tool is, but who is controlling it and to what purpose.

When bankers do illegal things, it's because they know they will get away with it. It's not because government is too big, it's because bankers have too much influence in government. Bankers having too much influence in a smaller government, is not going to make them behave any better. More effective regulation and consequences that deter, will.

As Adam Smith alluded to when he said "the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee" , all governments have the problem of keeping out corruption, some do it more successfully than others. A small corrupt government is as much of a problem as a big corrupt government. Size is irrelevant, corruption is the problem.

Libertarians are fixated on the size of government, which is really lazy thinking, and dangerous - because it is distracting from the real issue - who, and for what purpose, is controlling our law-making and our tax money. Listen to Bernie Sanders on the Koch brothers: LINK

ReplyVote up (103)down (86)
Original comment

"If powerful people do WTF they like then they wouldn't need to capture govt. to do it would they?" Don't you get it? Powerful people need to capture government to be able to do WTF they like, because that is where laws are made, or repealed.

You agreed with me that government is a tool. Government is the institution that makes and repeals laws, and is responsible for spending the people's money (taxes). The problem is not how big or small the tool is, but who is controlling it and to what purpose.

When bankers do illegal things, it's because they know they will get away with it. It's not because government is too big, it's because bankers have too much influence in government. Bankers having too much influence in a smaller government, is not going to make them behave any better. More effective regulation and consequences that deter, will.

As Adam Smith alluded to when he said "the regulator will ALWAYS be overcome by the regulatee" , all governments have the problem of keeping out corruption, some do it more successfully than others. A small corrupt government is as much of a problem as a big corrupt government. Size is irrelevant, corruption is the problem.

Libertarians are fixated on the size of government, which is really lazy thinking, and dangerous - because it is distracting from the real issue - who, and for what purpose, is controlling our law-making and our tax money. Listen to Bernie Sanders on the Koch brothers: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (892 days ago)

So you now agree that powerful people need govt. to do WTF they want, they can't do it by themselves. Don't you get it? It's not a question of what laws are made or repealed, there are thousands and thousands of new laws on the books every year, it's a matter of basic laws being enforced. An all powerful govt., the one you want, is unaccountable to anyone! You have that now in America and many times throughout history, they do what they want and if need be use the military, police,justice and covert means to do it. That's not lazy thinking, that's just the facts of the matter, THATS what's dangerous. You can't point to one libertarian leaning society or small govt. country where that is a problem but we can point to many powerful govts where it is. A small govt. can be controlled by the people. The type of govt. you want we have and have had many times in the past. Ask Ed Snowden, Julianne Assange, different and various reporters who dare to criticise those govts. Ask them which is better, a small controllable govt. or an all powerful one that Inevitably looks out for it own interest and power? The facts and history are on my side of the argument, you argue for more of the same expecting a different outcome... You know what that infers...

ReplyVote up (101)down (81)
Original comment

So you now agree that powerful people need govt. to do WTF they want, they can't do it by themselves. Don't you get it? It's not a question of what laws are made or repealed, there are thousands and thousands of new laws on the books every year, it's a matter of basic laws being enforced. An all powerful govt., the one you want, is unaccountable to anyone! You have that now in America and many times throughout history, they do what they want and if need be use the military, police,justice and covert means to do it. That's not lazy thinking, that's just the facts of the matter, THATS what's dangerous. You can't point to one libertarian leaning society or small govt. country where that is a problem but we can point to many powerful govts where it is. A small govt. can be controlled by the people. The type of govt. you want we have and have had many times in the past. Ask Ed Snowden, Julianne Assange, different and various reporters who dare to criticise those govts. Ask them which is better, a small controllable govt. or an all powerful one that Inevitably looks out for it own interest and power? The facts and history are on my side of the argument, you argue for more of the same expecting a different outcome... You know what that infers...

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (891 days ago)

FUUUUCCCCKKKK YOU, YA FEKIN PIECE OF SHIT KIKE LOVER! NI**ER LOVER! BANKER LOVER!

if you're not with the proletariat you must be sucking kike-banker cock and you must be terminated!

you're either with the decent folk (also called goyim by your scum masters) or you're with the banker kikes!

you know what decent folk do to banker kikes and their whores when they have a chance to do it, don't you?

BURN IN HELL CU*T!

ReplyVote up (107)down (108)
Original comment

FUUUUCCCCKKKK YOU, YA FEKIN PIECE OF SHIT KIKE LOVER! NI**ER LOVER! BANKER LOVER!

if you're not with the proletariat you must be sucking kike-banker cock and you must be terminated!

you're either with the decent folk (also called goyim by your scum masters) or you're with the banker kikes!

you know what decent folk do to banker kikes and their whores when they have a chance to do it, don't you?

BURN IN HELL CU*T!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Casey Casey (891 days ago)

What exactly are you trying to say?

ReplyVote up (116)down (65)
Original comment

What exactly are you trying to say?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
60019057 60019057 (890 days ago)
Latest comment:

lol you said decent folk.

ReplyVote up (81)down (101)
Original comment
Latest comment:

lol you said decent folk.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Is gold the biggest fraud in history?
Is gold the biggest fraud in history?
Who benefits when a business goes cashless?
Who benefits when a business goes cashless?
Exposing economic myths in the 2017 UK election
Exposing economic myths in the 2017 UK election
TYT - Trump owes big money to Deutsche Bank
TYT - Trump owes big money to Deutsche Bank
Is Goldman Sachs evil?
Is Goldman Sachs evil?