naked capitalism

Fiver says:

This is the first time I’ve seen an interview, and it’s a real pleasure to see that Ms. Smith is as clear and articulate verbally as in writing. How I wish she was an SEC prosecutor.

It’s just unbelievable these guys spew their hangdog “ain’t nuthin’ we culd do” line of BS even when the counterfacts have just been presented to their vapid, weaseled minds.

I’d like to see a barrage of charges on the grounds of criminal negligence – tens of millions around the world, and tens of thousands in the US are DEAD as a result of this debacle. Not 1 of these people considered the consequences of what they were doing, on either side of the regulatory fence. NOT ONE. And the proof is that there are at minimum several million nobodies like me who could see an earthquake coming years before it struck – and knew why. They were criminally wreckless with lives and property on a stupendous scale. Hit them with any and every available weapon. If need be, do what they did with Capone – none of these loathsome cruds could withstand any real scrutiny.

kielanders says:

Not ever having seen a picture, I thought Yves to be something in a vintage retired spinster school teacher, not a 32 y/o well spoken cute academic.

…i need to get out more.

Good segment.

David says:

Yves,

You came across very well. I noticed though that the other three guests and yourself were frequently blinking your eyes.
Was that because the studio lights were very bright ?

ReaderOfTeaLeaves says:

Well, at least the Newshour finally had a segment on the topic.
I found Valoukis’s emphasis on the diffusion of responsibility galling.

If it is so terribly, horribly difficult to determine who made decisions leading up to the insolvencies and bailouts, on what conceivable grounds are boards and management handing out extravagant bonuses? Isn’t the compensation supposedly based on performance? If it is possible to use performance — even in organizations where responsibility is diffuse — as the pretext for compensation, then why is it suddenly insufficient as legal evidence for attributing responsibility?

Why such very different standards?
Why no discussion of the fact that if the responsibility in these corporations is now so ‘diffuse’ that no one will be successfully prosecuted, then we might as well offer up last rites to the financialization of capitalism? Because without trust, the system is going to implode.
And without prosecutions, trust will not be renewed.

Several guests limited their comments to the legal process, as if the failure to prosecute will not have any economic consequences.
That is delusional.

aletheia33 says:

great interview. as usual, she uses too few minutes to maximum effect.
the usual crystal clarity cutting through both complexity and b.s.
liked use of the masto story–good points there. especially liked “they’re going to roll.”
inimitable.
harry shearer is my favorite interviewer of yves. he is as incisive as she is and provides the background and takes the time needed to allow her to render the full picture as only she can.
viewership may be lower than usual on thanksgiving; but those who do view may be the best of that show’s audience, the ones who stick to it in the midst of the frivolities.
i did not have the patience to watch much of the other interviewees–talking heads obfuscating, equivocating, rationalizing as we’ve heard all of before.
what i most want yves never to doubt is that her articulateness and integrity stand out sharply against the general run of what passes for commentary on television.
not that i’m an expert on what’s on tv–i do not own a tv and mostly just tune in via internet when yves makes an appearance.

Blunt says:

The most striking thing in the interviews was Calabria insisting at the 6 minute mark that we need to be deeply concerned with the “rights of the accused.”

This man works at Cato? Apparently the rights of financial criminals have a separate order of concern than those established at Cato for people who may not be part of the elite? Let’s say homeless men of color walking near a location where a burglar alarm went off.

Although I think what is repeatedly missed by those who mingle with the financial sector is the prevalence of the psychopaths as big players. You can probably include Corzine if you wish in that group. One of the most clueless and tin-eared politicians I ever saw. The old Republican congressman in Tn’s 1st district back when I was growing up who had a an election scare if he got only 65% of the vote was everso much better at massaging constituents and keeping his message on track than Corzine ever thought about being.

Anyhow, not my point. My point are the psychopaths who seem to be drawn to the financial sector these days like lemmings drawn to cliffs. The difficulty with what happens after the implosions seems to be among those who aren’t psychopaths and have spent their lives working in the trade. What is it? Disbelief that such creatures have invaded the host profession and hollowed it out while looting firms and others to please themselves?

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/24-0

How do you prosecute people when you don’t want to believe that they are far more dangerous to you than are the imaginary men of color you fear will mug you and slay you between the driveway of your suburban McMansion and its doorway? That seems to be the problem, and hopefully Masto will be able to effect some change in that regard.

gs_runsthiscountry says:

“The clock is ticking”

The most salient point in the interview was Statue of Frauds and Statue of limitations. Ignore, obfuscate, and avoid the issue long enough, they can and will ensure nothing will be done.

citizendave says:

One wonders if there was any discussion of diffusion of responsibility when it began to look like the wheels could come off, like in August of ’07, or whenever somebody in the firm’s legal department began to get nervous about the financial risk and the moral hazard. The TBTF culture seems to carry the assumption that they are above the law, but just to be sure, it’s easy to imagine they would talk about what measures could be taken to minimize the risk of prosecution of individuals if it all blew up.

The counter to the idea of diffusion of responsibility could be the concept of being an accessory to the crime. If there was a group with common motivation, and all were present when the crime was committed, but only one pulled the trigger, the rest could be prosecuted as accessories. Seems to me that people have been prosecuted for failing to try to stop a crime being committed by someone else.

Maybe we can’t establish exactly who is most responsible, but we know that something bad happened, and we know decisions were made that led to the dire consequences. And if corporations can be persons for purposes of free speech, is it a stretch for a corporation to be a person who committed financial malfeasance?

So maybe we could take the approach of dividing the firm into two groups, starting with those who clearly were NOT culpable: custodial staff, lowest-level administrative staff. Everybody else is guilty. The guilty parties all understood at some level that what they were doing was wrong, but they did nothing to try to stop it.

We have seen no sign of contrition. They seem to have been emboldened by their success at evading prosecution. They seem to have dedicated themselves to doing better next time. Their near-death experience in the Crash didn’t slow them down, it taught them to operate with greater precision. They will continue until something forces them to stop. If they can’t be reigned in with legal constraints, they will continue until the system crashes again. If it crashes, they’ll be poised to buy at fire sale prices.