|
Mo_Steel posted:There's a reason "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" became a saying back in the Civil War, and it poses an interesting question:
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Talmonis posted:I find that imagining a plague that was caused by the vanilla scented air in luxury hotels helps me sleep. Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! What is wrong with this place? Why does this discussion always turn to fantasizing about the horrible death of the rich?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:What is wrong with this place? Why does this discussion always turn to fantasizing about the horrible death of the rich? Alcohol. And bitterness. And jealousy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:55
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Can't improve society without placing a few hundred pudgy-necked heads on spikes, my mama always said. She was an eccentric woman.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! It's an expression of powerlessness. A lot of people perceive an inability to positively affect change. The only source of solace is a fantasy of destroying those who do have the power to affect change and subsequently use that power to exploit the rest of society. In other words, we're clearly not drinking enough.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Because we're proper socialists mate 
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 20:59
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Booze and a lack of understanding about why some people completely lack self-reflection and empathy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Hey I just wanted aggressive prosecutions and investigations complete with perp walks to investigate white collar crime and I got called out for wanting "an inept prosecutorial regime" so I dunno even when we don't clamor for the blood of the wealthy people will just lump us in with the those that do anyway. There is a lack of justice in the world, and we all know it. And we are powerless to stop it, so some lose themselves in their id. Pound for pound I bet we would see better social change if we had things like the NAACP mimicking the chicanery of Open Carry Texas then hoping that groups of grieving parents on the evening news would sway opinion. Though I don't want to see violence I suspect that radical systemic change can only come once the rich feel threatened as they did during the tail end of the great depression. A pogrom on the wealthy would be a horrible thing, but damned if I don't believe it would get us closer to meaningful social welfare legislation in the long run than a thousand occupies. Turnquiet fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Because I'm pretty sure that most of us have given up any hope of things getting better in our lifetimes, or at least early enough in our lifetimes to really matter to us(I don't think the country finally reestablishing a strong middle class when I'm in my 70s really does me a lot of good). When you give up hope of things getting better, what you are left with is fantasies of what you'd like done to the people who have made it this way and are perpetuating it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! Seeing the left increasingly coopted by liberals has made people rather disillusioned. When decades of any sort of (usually widely popular) progressive policy that would make any impact on the economic well-being of people broadly has been systematically undermined by capital, why would people continue to turn towards the existing power structures and expect something different? It is a failure of democracy, and more radical action is required - including obstacles to democracy, like entrenched capital.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:Where can I get my #Bergdhal tote bag to go with my #Benghazi tote bag? http://teespring.com/BoweBergdahlIsATraitor Well, you asked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Seeing the left increasingly coopted by liberals has made people rather disillusioned. When decades of any sort of (usually widely popular) progressive policy that would make any impact on the economic well-being of people broadly has been systematically undermined by capital, why would people continue to turn towards the existing power structures and expect something different? It is a failure of democracy, and more radical action is required - including obstacles to democracy, like entrenched capital. Name one single violent revolution that has resulted in a long-term increase in the overall well-being of the poor and working class.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Redeye Flight posted:Jesus Christ, I don't want this either! I don't want to wish death on people, I want life to get better! I fully admit I fall into the trap as well. When you have Donald Rumsfeld gloating all the way to the bank, I want to loving hurt him. I want to do something to exorcize the rage and pain I feel, and make him understand how much he hurt other people, and see if maybe it will get through his head what he did. But it won't, and it's not healthy for me. It's not something that I will ever accomplish, it's not something I can ever win. All thinking about it does is get me to grind my teeth, spike my blood pressure, and leave me in a foul mood. It's a natural urge, but like most natural urges it is one that needs to be beaten down. And I don't really know where I am going with this so I'm gonna stop the post here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Turnquiet posted:Hey I just wanted aggressive prosecutions and investigations complete with perp walks to investigate white collar crime and I got called out for wanting "an inept prosecutorial regime" so I dunno even when we don't clamor for the blood of the wealthy people will just lump us in with the those that do anyway. No, you wanted people to bring prosecutions they knew wouldn't succeed, in cases where there wasn't evidence to establish a violation of law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
The law doesn't matter when it comes to justice, apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:29
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, you wanted people to bring prosecutions they knew wouldn't succeed, in cases where there wasn't evidence to establish a violation of law. What if we make fraud prevention a legal duty of high-ranking officers of publicly held companies? "Oh you did everything you reasonably could to prevent fraud by your company but a subordinate outwitted and deceived you? No problem, your good-faith efforts are an affirmative defense, please submit enough evidence of them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were deceived." This might make being CEO less attractive, I admit. Good. If you can't be assed to make sure your bank isn't ripping people off (or as is more usual, you're ordering-but-not-ordering fraud with poo poo like "don't bother me about details, I want results!") then maybe corporate governance isn't for you. Go run your own privately-held company instead.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if we make fraud prevention a legal duty of high-ranking officers of publicly held companies? "Oh you did everything you reasonably could to prevent fraud by your company but a subordinate outwitted and deceived you? No problem, your good-faith efforts are an affirmative defense, please submit enough evidence of them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were deceived." You can't put the burden of proof on the defendant, you'd just get the entire thing struck down as unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, you wanted people to bring prosecutions they knew wouldn't succeed, in cases where there wasn't evidence to establish a violation of law. You know how you find out if a prosecution will succeed? By loving prosecuting people! That is what a trial is FOR. This attitude, that we shouldn't prosecute rich fuckers because they might be innocent is something that certainly isn't reflected in our prosecution of every other class of criminal. If you do something that looks criminal, you should probably get investigated. And hell, he was limiting it to things that explicitly WERE criminal, and saying the people in charge should be investigated (not found guilty, unless they were in fact guilty), and you're the one arguing that shouldn't be "because there wasn't enough evidence". I mean, it's not like there's no justification for arresting the immediately as soon as a crime is clear, even if you're not sure they are the ones who did it - destroying evidence has become common enough at this point that removing that opportunity is enough of a reason to arrest the top brass immediately, even if it turns some of them are innocent - as the investigation proceeds and the evidence is secured, you let those that were clearly innocent go, try the others, and those who are found guilty going to jail. Why is it that the heads of corporations are the only ones who, in your mind, should get to be immune to how the justice system actually works, and instead need to be proven, seemingly, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt BEFORE an investigation can occur, in some sort of parallel structure?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It's a natural urge, but like most natural urges it is one that needs to be beaten down.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:35
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if we make fraud prevention a legal duty of high-ranking officers of publicly held companies? "Oh you did everything you reasonably could to prevent fraud by your company but a subordinate outwitted and deceived you? No problem, your good-faith efforts are an affirmative defense, please submit enough evidence of them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were deceived." "Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you attempted to prevent your college-aged son from having marijuana in his room, or else we'll have to charge you as an accomplice." Some of you are as bad as Freepers when it comes to wanting justice only for the 'right' sort of people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, you wanted people to bring prosecutions they knew wouldn't succeed, in cases where there wasn't evidence to establish a violation of law. To be clear, it's not that prosecutors have no evidence a crime occurred, it's just that they have less than 90% confidence that they can secure a conviction, so they're loathe to try. Amergin posted:The law doesn't matter when it comes to justice, apparently. It's not about the law or justice, it's about setting expectations. If people reasonably expect that doing shady financial poo poo will see them investigated and potentially prosecuted, they'll be less likely to do shady financial poo poo. The law should be changed in such a way as to facilitate the punishment of financial behavior that the public dislikes and/or that causes economic harm to everyone else. Robviously posted:Shareholders have next to no say in what happens day to day, even if they hold stock which actually allows them a vote. Not all stock does that. But let's ignore this for a second and play with a little bit of fun math. Yeah, but that's a changeable thing. If shareholders were more likely to suffer because a company's executives did shady/illegal stuff, then shareholders would focus on investing in companies where they had the capability to insure that the company's leadership wasn't a bunch of crooks. For instance, if serious executive malfeasance resulted in a corporate death penalty (nationalization, restructuring, and spinning out under new management/ownership) then shareholders would stand to lose all of their investment if they weren't diligent about overseeing their officers and board members and we'd see a massive shift of money out of companies with weak shareholders' rights and into companies that gave shareholders more power.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:You can't put the burden of proof on the defendant, you'd just get the entire thing struck down as unconstitutional. Sure you can. That's what an affirmative defense is. You admit the fraud happened under your watch, then submit a defense that you were misled by the fraudster despite your reasonable efforts to prevent it. Although looking it up, the burden of proof is lower than readonable doubt, usually "clear and convincing evidence." I'm fine with using that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What if we make fraud prevention a legal duty of high-ranking officers of publicly held companies? "Oh you did everything you reasonably could to prevent fraud by your company but a subordinate outwitted and deceived you? No problem, your good-faith efforts are an affirmative defense, please submit enough evidence of them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were deceived." Good idea, we could call it something snappy like "the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002". Maybe make the part where the management signs off on the internal control report "section 404: assessment of internal control"
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:You know how you find out if a prosecution will succeed? By loving prosecuting people! That is what a trial is FOR. This attitude, that we shouldn't prosecute rich fuckers because they might be innocent is something that certainly isn't reflected in our prosecution of every other class of criminal. Yes, you should. And when the investigation doesn't turn up enough to sustain a prosecution, you drop it.. You don't arrest someone before you have the evidence ("perp walk") and you don't indict someone when you know you're going to lose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"Please prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you attempted to prevent your college-aged son from having marijuana in his room, or else we'll have to charge you as an accomplice." This isn't the same thing. At all. For starters, you don't have to be a corporate officer and asking you to give it up if you don't want to stop fraud is not the same as asking someone to disown their kid. Also, unlike financial fraud, growing marijuana doesn't directly ruin and impoverish millions of Americans and wreck the economy. Fried Chicken posted:Good idea, we could call it something snappy like "the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002". Maybe make the part where the management signs off on the internal control report "section 404: assessment of internal control" drat it! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Elephant Ambush posted:Name one single violent revolution that has resulted in a long-term increase in the overall well-being of the poor and working class. 1688: The Glorious Revolution in England overthrew King James II and established a Whig-dominated Protestant constitutional monarchy. 1775–1783: The American Revolution establishes independence of the thirteen North American colonies from Great Britain, creating the republic of the United States of America. 1789: Regarded as one of the most influential of all socio-political revolutions, the French Revolution is associated with the rise of the bourgeoisie and the downfall of the aristocracy. 1791–1804: The Haitian Revolution: A successful slave rebellion, led by Toussaint Louverture, establishes Haiti as the first free, black republic. 1795: In this year broke out several slave rebellions in entire the Caribbean, influenced by the Haitian Revolution: in Cuba, Jamaica (Second Maroon War), Dominica (Colihault Uprising), Saint Lucia (Bush War, so-called “Guerre des Bois”), Saint Vicent (Second Carib War), Grenada (Fedon Rebellion), Curaçao (led by Tula), Guyana (Demerara Rebellion) and Coro, Venezuela (led by José Leonardo Chirino). 1810–1821: The Mexican War of Independence, a revolution against Spanish colonialism. 1810: The Viceroy of the Río de la Plata Baltasar Hidalgo de Cisneros is deposed during the May Revolution. 1820–1824: The revolutionary war of independence in Peru led by José de San Martín. 1821–1829: The Greek War of Independence. 1848: The French Revolution of 1848 led to the creation of the French Second Republic. 1866–1868: The Meiji Restoration and modernization revolution in Japan. Samurai uprising leads to overthrow of shogunate and establishment of "modern" parliamentary, Western-style system. 1868: The Glorious Revolution in Spain deposes Queen Isabella II. 1910–1920: The Mexican Revolution overthrows the dictator Porfirio Díaz; seizure of power by the Institutional Revolutionary Party. 1910: The republican revolution in Portugal. 1916–1923: The Irish War of Independence, the period of nationalist rebellion, guerrilla warfare, political change and civil war which brought about the establishment of the independent nation, the Irish Free State. 1917: The February Revolution in Russia overthrows Tsar Nicholas II. 1923: The founding of the Republic of Turkey by overthrow of the Ottoman Empire and introduction of Atatürk's Reforms. 1927–1933: A rebellion led by Augusto César Sandino against the United States presence in Nicaragua. 1945: The August Revolution led by Ho Chi Minh and Vietminh declared the independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam from French rule. 1945–1949: The Indonesian National Revolution against Dutch after their independence from Japan. Led by Soekarno, Hatta, Tan Malaka, etc. with the Dutch led by Van Mook. 1947: India wins independence from Britain. 1954–1962: The Algerian War of Independence: an uprising against French colonialism. 1956–1959: The Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro removes the government of General Fulgencio Batista. 1961–1975: The Angolan War of Independence began as an uprising against forced cotton harvesting, and became a multi-faction struggle for control of Portugal's Overseas Province of Angola. 1962–1974: The leftist African Party for the Independence of Guinea and Cape Verde (PAIGC) wages a revolutionary war of independence in Portuguese Guinea. 1964–1975: The Mozambican Liberation Front (FRELIMO), formed in 1962, commenced a guerrilla war against Portuguese colonialism. Independence was granted on June 25, 1975. 1968: The May 1968 revolt. 1979: The popular overthrow of the Somoza dictatorship by the Nicaraguan Revolution. 1979: Cambodia is liberated from the Khmer Rouge regime by the Vietnam-backed Kampuchean People's Revolutionary Party. 2010: Second Kyrgyz Revolution leads to the ousting of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev. 2010–2012: Arab Spring: The Tunisian revolution forces President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali to resign and flee the country, and sets free elections, in the Libyan civil war rebel forces gradually take control of the country, and kill the leader Muammar Gaddafi,
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:
It's much like being for prison reform. If you want to be morally consistent, you have to support the proper treatment of child rapists, torturers, scum of the earth. It's all the same thing. I may joke about eating the rich, but the truth is they don't taste good and I'd be happy with taking their wealth and letting them enjoy a good life, if everyone else is too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:For starters, you don't have to be a corporate officer and asking you to give it up if you don't want to stop fraud is not the same as asking someone to disown their kid. "If you didn't want to be prosecuted for aiding cash register theft, Mr. Burger King Manager, you should have quit your job before your cashier could be caught stealing on camera." VitalSigns posted:Also, unlike financial fraud, growing marijuana doesn't directly ruin and impoverish millions of Americans and wreck the economy. I think you'd have a hard time proving that causality for any particular case of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Good idea, we could call it something snappy like "the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002". Maybe make the part where the management signs off on the internal control report "section 404: assessment of internal control" Paging Bill Black. Please pick up the white courtesy phone and calmly explain for the fifty-leventh time why we had all the tools we needed kick these motherfuckers in the nuts as many times as we wanted, but chose not to because
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, you should. And when the investigation doesn't turn up enough to sustain a prosecution, you drop it.. You don't arrest someone before you have the evidence ("perp walk") and you don't indict someone when you know you're going to lose. Ok seriously, do you have any experience with how the police deal with low income people at all? Particularly black people? Because this idea that the cops don't just grab someone and toss them in the tank based off "reasonable suspicion" is complete crap. Between the vagueness if defining "reasonable suspicion", most people not knowing the specifics of the arrest process, time, and the volume of laws you passively break all the time that you are unaware of, the cops can make you suffer the kind of "petty indignity" that ends careers without needing to arrest or convict Edit: seriously, we send SWAT in after people pirating movies, you think cops couldn't do something to these CEOs and walk? Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Jun 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Yes, you should. And when the investigation doesn't turn up enough to sustain a prosecution, you drop it.. You don't arrest someone before you have the evidence ("perp walk") and you don't indict someone when you know you're going to lose. Good thing this logic doesn't hold for anyone stupid enough to be poor and/or a minority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
Remind me again why so many were thrown in jail during the S&L crisis but we can't touch similar folks now?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
I'm not competent to comment on all of these, but I don't think the Glorious Revolution in England was a revolution the way most people would understand the word. And judging the Arab Spring as having led to a long term-increase in the well being of the poor and working class is certainly premature.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Good thing this logic doesn't hold for anyone stupid enough to be poor and/or a minority. It should. The solution to it not holding for them is not to apply the way they're treated to everyone else, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:"If you didn't want to be prosecuted for aiding cash register theft, Mr. Burger King Manager, you should have quit your job before your cashier could be caught stealing on camera." Rich people don't need to be corporate officers the same way middle-class people need their jobs. But if Burger King thought the manager was looking the other way or encouraging the thefts, they'd probably fire him anyway, and he doesn't even get a chance to show evidence he didn't do it. Fiduciary duty already exists. Certain people, by virtue of their position, already have a higher standard of behavior relating to their profession than the average person does. If my financial advisor directs me to an investment he should have known is fraudulent (or if he just can't be assed to do due diligence and check) that's already a crime. I don't see how this would be any different. fool_of_sound posted:I think you'd have a hard time proving that causality for any particular case of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. That's a justification for the policy, not something that would need to be proven in an individual case. In the individual case, you just need to prove that the fraud occurred and what particular harm it had. Fried Chicken already destroyed my argument anyway, by pointing out that something like what I want already exists but isn't enforced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:01
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Remind me again why so many were thrown in jail during the S&L crisis but we can't touch similar folks now? Because the banking sector owns the government to a larger degree than it did then and we choose to do as little as possible, having fired everyone who was part of those prosecutions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Remind me again why so many were thrown in jail during the S&L crisis but we can't touch similar folks now? The S&L crisis cost *rich* people their money. Same reason Madoff went to jail. As long as you're only fleecing rubes, you're untouchable. But don't gently caress with power's money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:02
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Remind me again why so many were thrown in jail during the S&L crisis but we can't touch similar folks now? Because they didn't do the same things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Because they didn't do the same things. Okay, but even if you're right and the angelic CEOs are totally innocent and not in any way heavily implying that people need to commit fraud to get the quarterly numbers CEOs demand...How did we manage not to put away anyone? And not just for the mortgage nonsense either, HSBC got caught laundering money for drug lords and no one went to jail. Meanwhile, a poor person who gets caught buying any of those drugs gets decades in prison.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 14:56 |
|
|
Kalman posted:It should. I'm glad you're suggesting that we pay exorbitant attorney fees for all the downtrodden of the country, because you don't honestly think that legitimate innocence is the reason the uber-affluent get off clean as a whistle in all these financial cases.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 22:10
|
|