Home | About | Donate

Ten Years After Not One High-Level Banker Sent to Jail for Tanking Global Economy, This Man Gets 20 Years in Prison for Stealing Cigarettes

That 125 million was more or less divided between the two candidates - 65,844,610 for the red queen, and 62,979,636 for the orange Mussolini, but, “Nearly half of eligible voters, 231,556,622 million people, did not vote in the 2016 presidential election” - so there is some potential cause for hope as almost twice as many did not (arguably) vote to support the evil shit coming down every goddamn day!..

1 Like

I completely disagree. Prison is a failed concept. Prisons don’t do anything positive for society. They dehumanize people and make them far more likely commit more crimes, not less. It is a false sense of “justice” that far too many of us subscribe to without thinking through what we are doing to these people.

The 3 strikes concept is just more of the same on steroids. It’s a policy designed to destroy people, not make them a positive part of our society.

Instead of prison, we should focus on reparations (how about those banksters paying damages to the victims?) and rehabilitation.

When we had the Great Recession, the “solution” implemented by our government was to “save” the big banks by giving them cheap money. At the same time, we sacrificed all of the real victims of the crisis who had been sold phony mortgages that were literal financial time bombs that those people didn’t really understand. If we had written off part of those loans (by reducing the balance owed), and thereby made them affordable by reducing the monthly payments accordingly, millions of people could have kept their homes, avoided bankrupcty and still made the banks viable. Instead, we fed the 0.1% (who caused the crisis by pushing these dodgy loans) and starved everyone else. Meanwhile, the 0.1% moved in to buy those homes in foreclosure and make billions in the process – that’s what you call a win-win – if you’re part of the 0.1%.

Putting a bankster or a robber in jail doesn’t make me or you any better off. It only increases the cost of their wrong doing. I don’t wake up everyday thinking I’m better off because all of those people are in prison. To the contrary, I’m stuck with the exorbitant cost of incarcerating them and ruining their lives for the rest of their lives. We need to do much better. We can do much better. Revenge through incarceration is an empty “value” that delivers nothing to anyone.


Well, the banksters do own congress.

Once you have one felony conviction, it’s disgustingly easy for prosecutors to craft plea offers to coerce you into pleading guilty even if you’re innocent or if a halfway decent attorney could get the charges dismissed for lack of evidence. All those TV courtroom dramas? With cops and lawyers fighting the good fight for truth and justice? Yeah, that shit don’t happen in real life. Police target whoever they think they can get away with targeting to up their arrest numbers, prosecutors go for convictions over truth, and most public defenders are only there to tell you how screwed you are.

1 Like

Several that you call ‘banksters’ lost their jobs, and are jobless, so far as I know. Angelo Mozilo, Charles Prince, Stan O’Neal, Ken Lewis and several more. Some committed suicide, such as Scott Coles and Kirk Stephenson. Those individual ‘banksters’ won’t do it again; I do understand that you were making a sweeping generalization that other ‘banksters’ will do such again.

An opinion, since Jamie Dimon was in the news a lot. His bank didn’t get into trouble, and survived, so looks like he was just a banker, not a bankster.

No. That is part of the mythology. Several people in charge when the system blew up were forced out of their jobs. And the poster-boy of it, Richard Fuld of Lehman Brothers, lost much of his wealth and social standing. All discussed in a Wall Street Journal article several years after 2008.

Excepting the Madoff* brothers.
Also disappointing is the number (= zero) of regulators and politicians who also had a hand in making the mess who also did not suffer consequences for the blow up.

  • There is a court officer going after everything that can be retrieved from Bernie Madoff. (We might think he was too kind, and that more should have been taken from Mrs. Madoff, so that she has to dine on cat food…)
  • Bernie has remarked that prisoners are interested in learning about personal finance from him, and he could teach it. The prison authorities prevent it out of ‘optics’ that he would really be teaching the prisoners about how to commit financial fraud.

(Oh, for the practices of the days of the South Sea Bubble, when British authorities recapitalized that bank by seizing the personal assets of the managers in charge when it failed.)

What do you accuse Jamie Dimon of doing (doing, for emphasis), to justify the accusation of ‘bankster’?

In comparisons, Wells Fargo (now ex-)CEO John Stumpf much much better deserves the accusation of ‘bankster’ than Dimon.

Or are you accusing the institutions of large banks of themselves being ‘banksters’, with no look at how the people running them are running them? Much like the Nuremberg trials had a separate list of indictments of institutions as criminal, and if an institution was convicted, then (in theory) anyone belonging to that institution was a criminal.
– Then an entirely different solution is needed. As much as jailing the people is needed, something else is needed. Maybe Sen. Sanders’ break-up bill, extending further to the top 100 banks…