Ah yeah, I remember when people went to jail because of the 2008 financial crisis.
(sure, apparently nothing illegal was done, it was just recklessness and poor judgement, but I see why people would think wall street always get off scot-free)
(sure, apparently nothing illegal was done, it was just recklessness and poor judgement, but I see why people would think wall street always get off scot-free)
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/companies/bankers-priso...
>From 2008 to 2011, Woodard and Stephen Fields, a former executive vice president and commercial loan officer at the bank, hid the bank’s financial condition, authorities said. Bank insiders also gave preferential financing to troubled borrowers to buy properties Bank of the Commonwealth owned, prosecutors said.
So that was after the crisis - they wanted to hide how bad it affected them?
>> the 2008 financial crisis
The problem evidenced by the 2008 crisis was that many destructive behaviors were not, in fact, illegal. (Some were, and many of those people are barred from industry or going to jail [1].)
[1] http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/03/news/libor-scandal-tom-hayes...
If you're reckless in your car and get into an accident, can you be jailed? Yes, for reckless endangerment.
Why is there no such thing in the financial world, especially after 2008 :(
Recklessness is well defined in respect of cars. (It wasn't when they first came out.) Recklessness is well defined in respect of selling stocks and bonds. (It wasn't a century ago.) Recklessness was not well defined in respect of certain new financial products in 2008. It is now.
I am not too well-versed with laws and legislations (especially because everything sounds partisan) but are you talking about Dodd Frank? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street... The last I read about it, Congress is trying to get rid of it, no? Is there some other regulation that makes what was not against the law in 2008 (actually I don't know much about this either) against the law now?