PatsFanInVa

As I understand it there are FBI fraud probes underway in relationship to the Wall Street meltdown.

As we all know there are also proposed caps on executive compensation, for the world of those who are not technically guilty of fraud.

I have a modest proposal which I think should appeal to all of us:

We have provisions from our "war on drugs" that should be applied to a "war on fraud". Among them:

- It's perfectly okay to sieze assets above and beyond those assets tied to drug income in a criminal trial. I propose we extend this to corporate fraud.

- In drug law, the government can also "sue an asset" when it can not make its criminal case. This a contentious issue.

What it means is I can file a suit called "US vs. silver escalade VIN number #######," if I find a seed or two in it. You don't even have to be guilty. Your car's guilty. Badda bing badda boom, the government takes it. Oh, it was just your kid storing the weed in the basement? Too bad lady. You're homeless. And remember, civil law means you use the "preponderance of evidence" standard rather than the "shadow of reasonable doubt" standard.

I propose we tie this provision of drug law to a mirror provision in corporate law. I am against this in principal. I do believe, however, that if it pertains in drug law we should enact it in corporate fraud law. Any asset -- a Yacht, a home, a computer, an office building -- that can be proven under the "preponderance of evidence" standard, should become property of the government... IF we retain this form of justice in drug cases. It's right or it's wrong, one or the other.

- The Dept. of Justice should move aggressively against those convicted of fraud (as they will,) and apply class-action damages for the People in fraud cases (as is unlikely). Punitive damages (over and above actual damages) should be a possibility. When the government is done with these people they should be broke. Period. No "secret swiss account," nothing. Dead farking broke and in prison.

- The funds collected, OF COURSE, should be applied to the damage done to the TAXPAYER. Does this mean a great big check? NOOOOOO!!!! It means a contribution to the public freaking til. We need to understand we are in a bloody hole here.

In other words, I don't just want your 50 million dollar bonus, if you're actually guilty of fraud. I want your 2 billion dollar estate and stock portfolio etc etc etc. There are bills to be paid dude. Can't hack it? HEY! I've just incentivized you to go back into business and help build the economy once you're out of prison!!!

Grrrrrr

The ever-so-populist

PFnV

MrBigglesWorth

sounds good, but instead of spending cash warehousing them in a prison I propose banishing them to alaska and if they decide to come back the US 49 other states I would then send them to prison. and they don't get internet access either.

let them do manual labor

radical yes, but we don't need to house more felons

__________________
"There are two categories of superbowl participants that nobody remembers:

The team that lost the game and the team that only won one." Dwight White- Steelers

PatsFanInVa

Nahhhh they're mainly pretty bright. Slammer for 20 years then let them start businesses. Good for the economy.

MrBigglesWorth

why not let them start a business in prison? like learn to knit and croquet? or sorting recyclables- good for the environment. that'd be the way i'd go

__________________
"There are two categories of superbowl participants that nobody remembers:

The team that lost the game and the team that only won one." Dwight White- Steelers

PatsFanInVa

Sold!............

PatriotsReign

And then film them waiting in line to collect their welfare checks and put it on the 6pm news? I like it, I like it!

PatsFanInVa

Before that we'd have to film them getting cuffed with the cops pushing them into the back of the car with "Bad Boys" playing in the background (a la one of them older Michael Moore movies.)

weswelker#83

Hi PFIV , i am not sure if you read this article....

The financial crisis gripping the U.S. isn't an anomaly. We just have short memories
TheStar.com | Ideas | A little problem with capitalism

PatsFanInVa

Haven't read it, but it's a good broad-brush synopsis.

Keynes indeed saved capitalism, by basic admission that regulation is a pragmatic solution to an inherent problem. I like the phrasing in here, that it was a "grand bargain." Even before Keynes, the old bastard Henry Ford himself recognized that greed, ultimately, was bad for business. He insisted that wages be high enough (!) and goods inexpensive enough (!!) that his workers could buy his cars. Dunno if that turned out to be true or not, but it was certainly the articulated goal. And it was certainly the beginning of mass production in the auto industry and therefore, the auto industry as we know it (roughly speaking.)

Even that rudimentary common sense got lost in this latest debacle. The goal became to make the money from the other money, essentially: derivatives, mortgage backed securities, whatever opaque piece of paper. If you bought it you could sell it for a long time for more money. But you didn't much understand what the damn thing was. You just had a vague sense it got bigger and bigger until it didn't.

But yep this is spot on, it's the same basic problem again. Hence my preference for regulated markets.

Thanks for an interesting read.

PFnV

patsfan13

Does this proposal include the crooks who ran Freddie and Frannie into the ground committing accounting fraud so they could collect their bonuses and contribute to their political allies?

__________________
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."