THE BORE
General => The Superdeep Borehole => Topic started by: Van Cruncheon on November 13, 2008, 01:38:19 AM
-
http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/11/The-End-of-Wall-Streets-Boom#page1
The funny thing, looking back on it, is how long it took for even someone who predicted the disaster to grasp its root causes. They were learning about this on the fly, shorting the bonds and then trying to figure out what they had done. Eisman knew subprime lenders could be scumbags. What he underestimated was the total unabashed complicity of the upper class of American capitalism. For instance, he knew that the big Wall Street investment banks took huge piles of loans that in and of themselves might be rated BBB, threw them into a trust, carved the trust into tranches, and wound up with 60 percent of the new total being rated AAA.
pretty good read, and pretty condemnatory of crony capitalism.
-
that's fucked up
-
The bit drinky quoted is exactly why it'll happen all over again. When you get to a certain level of complexity, only not-yet-evolved A.I. has a hope of understanding it, never mind regulating it.
-
the rampant "innovation" in the investment banks was nuts -- they were cranking out new permutations of new angles and scams every other week, and sold all their schemes in an elaborate confidence game, never understanding the real price of their actions. it's appalling. there isn't a single moral fund manager or investment banker in the whole business, it seems.
-
Pretty much. And there never has been! Looking forward to reading the article whenever I get done with my shift in the mines of other people's wealth...
have you read Liar's Poker then? If not, I highly recommend it.
-
the rampant "innovation" in the investment banks was nuts -- they were cranking our new permutations of new angles and scams every other week, and sold all their schemes in an elaborate confidence game, never understanding the real price of their actions. it's appalling. there isn't a single moral fund manager or investment banker in the whole business, it seems.
qft
But why should we expect better when we've allowed a "profits uber alles" mentality to fester in the financial sector for over 20 years now?
Btw, the entire first page of that article is so spot-on in so many ways that it's frightening. It says so much of what I've been thinking and saying over the last decade in a much more eloquent, insightful, and knowledgeable way. The entire article is a must read. This portion asks a question I've wondered about myself since I've wrapped my mind around the whole MBS issue:
But he couldn’t figure out exactly how the rating agencies justified turning BBB loans into AAA-rated bonds. “I didn’t understand how they were turning all this garbage into gold,” he says. He brought some of the bond people from Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, and UBS over for a visit. “We always asked the same question,” says Eisman. “Where are the rating agencies in all of this? And I’d always get the same reaction. It was a smirk.” He called Standard & Poor’s and asked what would happen to default rates if real estate prices fell. The man at S&P couldn’t say; its model for home prices had no ability to accept a negative number. “They were just assuming home prices would keep going up,” Eisman says.
To this day, I cannot fathom how not a single executive at any of these ratings agencies has come under fire and been called to account for their actions by the government. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark, indeed...
-
Henry Waxman had an oversight hearing on the rating agencies where he raked them over the coals something fierce.
Patel had a good post about how fixing the crisis and installing the checks to make sure it doesn't happen again are higher priorities than punishing people, but I'd still like to see a little blood.
Anyone read Liar's Poker? I got a copy a couple years ago but never got around to it.
-
Some more excerpts from the article which mirror a lot of my own sentiment; I've pointed a lot of this stuff out in a roundabout way on the forums over the years (I make no claims to prescience; I only mention this because I honestly feel that any intelligent person could have -- and should have -- seen this coming, which makes our current predicament all the more appalling):
He thought the cause of the financial crisis was “simple. Greed on both sides—greed of investors and the greed of the bankers.” I thought it was more complicated. Greed on Wall Street was a given—almost an obligation. The problem was the system of incentives that channeled the greed.
Inculcation of, and incentivization of, greed? Check.
From that moment, though, the Wall Street firm became a black box. The shareholders who financed the risks had no real understanding of what the risk takers were doing, and as the risk-taking grew ever more complex, their understanding diminished. The moment Salomon Brothers demonstrated the potential gains to be had by the investment bank as public corporation, the psychological foundations of Wall Street shifted from trust to blind faith.
No investment bank owned by its employees would have levered itself 35 to 1 or bought and held $50 billion in mezzanine C.D.O.’s. I doubt any partnership would have sought to game the rating agencies or leap into bed with loan sharks or even allow mezzanine C.D.O.’s to be sold to its customers. The hoped-for short-term gain would not have justified the long-term hit.
No partnership, for that matter, would have hired me or anyone remotely like me. Was there ever any correlation between the ability to get in and out of Princeton and a talent for taking financial risk?
Structural flaws inherent in the very nature of incorporation and speculative economics? Check.
He agreed that the main effect of turning a partnership into a corporation was to transfer the financial risk to the shareholders. “When things go wrong, it’s their problem,” he said—and obviously not theirs alone. When a Wall Street investment bank screwed up badly enough, its risks became the problem of the U.S. government. “It’s laissez-faire until you get in deep shit,” he said, with a half chuckle. He was out of the game.
Privatizing profits and socializing the risk? Check.
I've said it many times but it bears repeating: this country is a joke.
-
I've said it many times but it bears repeating: this country is a joke.
I hate to use a vague term, but I think it's more like society is a joke. While the US might be at the epicenter of globalization, at this point we've seen the dominoes fall all directions around the world. I don't mean to make it sound like it's not only the US's fault, but merely to point out that all of society kinda sucks. I've had this conversationw ith my therapist several times now and I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm some sort of anarcho-primitivist. I just can't stand that so much about our society isn't controlled by people, but by generally evil corporations that don't have the well being of said society in mind at all. And the scales of government or justice appear to be tipped in their favor, all over the civilized world.
-
Liar's Poker is fantastic. It's a great read whether you're in finance or not, or think you're interested in it or not (as was reflected in its sales).
-
Fuck that. They knew! Now they are playing dumb. The ratings agencies were involved as well. Where is the accountability? They were all making a shitload of money and didn't care since it wasn't their money being lost in the end. :maf
-
Falsely rated subprime mortgages are just one part of it. Credit default swaps (something even more unbelievably distinguished mentally-challenged and complex) are next.
If you guys want more, check these radio shows/podcasts out:
Giant Pool of Money (about subprime mortgages):
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1242
Another Frightening Show About the Economy (about credit default swaps):
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?sched=1263
Planet Money has daily play-by-play info:
http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=94411890
Speculation and unaccountability is mostly to blame for all of this. Individuals knew how unstable these practices were, but nobody wanted or could stop any of it. It's also nobody's fault simply because nobody knew where it would lead, just that it was risky. There are a lot of super abstract financial practices, so this probably just appeared to be another to the people involved.
On the other hand, it seems very common sense that if you start giving out loans to people who won't be able to pay them back....you're probably not going to get anything in return :lol
-
And even though austrian economists were predicting this crash for the past 8 years it's somehow their fault. Not only that but most laissez-faire advocates want the people responsible, the banks and the brokers, to fail and yet for some reason people like prole swear we need a 700 billion dollar bailout package for them. I cant wait till we are talking about this same problem again in 10 years.
-
And even though austrian economists were predicting this crash for the past 8 years it's somehow their fault. Not only that but most laissez-faire advocates want the people responsible, the banks and the brokers, to fail and yet for some reason people like prole swear we need a 700 billion dollar bailout package for them. I cant wait till we are talking about this same problem again in 10 years.
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
-
DailyKos all but endorses Ron Paul.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/12/155056/91/449/659578 (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/12/155056/91/449/659578)
:lol
-
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
It will happen because people like you dont get it. The bailout will reward everyone that was knee deep in this shit instead of letting them fail which is what laissez-faire economists want. And on top of that shit fuck liberals will blame the lack of regulation (lol).
-
Isn't "letting the banks fail" roughly the Herbert Hoover approach to the problem?
And were Austrian economists really predicting a meltdown in the financial sector as a result of real estate derivatives trading and irresponsible credit rating and insuring practices? Eight years ago?
-
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
It will happen because people like you dont get it. The bailout will reward everyone that was knee deep in this shit instead of letting them fail which is what laissez-faire economists want. And on top of that shit fuck liberals will blame the lack of regulation (lol).
Businesses fail in Capitalism. It's happened before, and would be happening now in the Financial Industry if it wasn't for the bailout. The problem with bailouts is where do you draw the line? Now the Big Three American Auto Companies want bailout money as well. Where will it end? How will we decide who gets bailed out and who doesn't?
-
Oh no! We are all trapped, prisoners of the Sorites paradox!
-
My big question is this, banks are getting money back for default loans and other shit. Are the people who defaulted on the loans still going to be liable for the money even if the bailout already gave the bank money for it?
-
I think an argument could be made, given modern interpretations of the idea, that any large company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to get a piece of this bailout money. It's like the numbers don't mean anything anymore. Like it's not real money or something.
-
I think an argument could be made, given modern interpretations of the idea, that any large company has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders to get a piece of this bailout money. It's like the numbers don't mean anything anymore. Like it's not real money or something.
This is one of the big reasons I was opposed to the bailout. I moved into the "for" camp after they made modifications after the first failure that indicated therre would be oversight, but it's clear now that was complete and total bullshit.
-
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
It will happen because people like you dont get it. The bailout will reward everyone that was knee deep in this shit instead of letting them fail which is what laissez-faire economists want. And on top of that shit fuck liberals will blame the lack of regulation (lol).
Well, you have a grimmer view of the world than I. Instead of killing time waiting for banks to revive themselves, while the economy and everyone else in the world suffers the consequences of having shitty banks, the injection of money skips all that. You're looking at it in terms of punishment/reward...as if the banks were children that need to be trained. That's not reality-- they aren't going to "learn" shit...if they know they fucked up bad, they already know it. If they don't, they aren't going to learn. I think that the crisis has already brought a lot of important people back down to Earth. Sure, we'll see other crises in our lifetime, but not this one and probably not another one in 10 years. It's all on Obama's shoulders...no pressure, guy :lol
As for your last sentence, there were some key points where regulation could have stopped this. Some were proposed by republicans in 2000, the democrats stopped it. but then further regulations that could have alleviated the problem were proposed by democrats, then stopped by republicans. The political angle doesn't help anyone understand this situation any better, it only fucks things up, since both sides had a hand in it.
-
I still think the bailout option was better than letting the banks depend on the invisible hand.
I think we all knew the bailout money was going to be abused. A lot of it being misplaced, businesses with their hands out that don't need it, and I'm sure there is skimming going on. New York Times had an expose a couple years ago about Iraq where they discovered hundreds of thousands of dollars stashed in an unlocked locker.
-
After Comrade Paulson's hilarious bait and switch performance yesterday, I am now of the opinion that pretty much anyone involved in the destruction of our financial system over the past decade should be publicly executed outside the NYSE. Do it French Revolution style and build a guillotine, let's get 'er done!
-
Bush is giving a speech now
-
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
It will happen because people like you dont get it. The bailout will reward everyone that was knee deep in this shit instead of letting them fail which is what laissez-faire economists want. And on top of that shit fuck liberals will blame the lack of regulation (lol).
your dirty hated krugman predicted it, too, and more accurately.
the problem with "letting the banks fails" is that they take a large majority of innocent folks down with them -- which does NOBODY any favors. thanks to deregulation, they can hold us hostage. good jon, laissez-faire reaganite fucks!
we cultivated a culture of irresponsible "every man for himself" GREED, and now plenty of financially moral folks are paying an extreme price for it. we not only opened the banks to the folks in the ski masks, we handed them our pin numbers, and now you want them to start executing us. "they'll see what mistakes they've made when we're dead and they have all the money! thank god there were no laws making this a crime!" fuck off!
-
We need to exhume and hang Ronald Reagan's corpse
-
After Comrade Paulson's hilarious bait and switch performance yesterday, I am now of the opinion that pretty much anyone involved in the destruction of our financial system over the past decade should be publicly executed outside the NYSE. Do it French Revolution style and build a guillotine, let's get 'er done!
amen. I'd also like to see merrill lynch bring in a real bull, slash it while elevated 30 feet into the air, and then let machete-wielding WTO protestors deal with the investment bankers in a frenzied blood orgy as the bull's blood poured on them.
-
:lol
-
it really IS impossible for lolbertarian set to understand economics, and that the modern marketplace is not about numbers or facts but human moral manipulation, confidence games, unreason, and "capable" ignorance. to combat this, the austrian shitwits adopt a pessimistic attitude not to accurately project human behavior as they purport but to provide a catch-all for their nerdlinger fear of market unreason. fuck 'em. there is only one answer: HARDCORE REGULATION. i'm not gonna take a shock every 10 years when the rats in their self-made maze decide to see how many pellets they can snag at once
-
I admit that I lol when I read the term "Austrian economics."
-
Just once I would like the libertopians to addres the very, very real fact that their assumptions are all based on completely rational actors operating in a completely artificial and irrational environment. It is like TEH UNSTOPPABLE FORCE meeting the IMMOVABLE OBJECT.
-
yep, same exact thing is going to happen in 10 years, because it has been happening every 10 years since civilization started and nobody will do anything different at all after the bailout. No new laws will be made to tighten regulations, Obama is not going to pay any attention to the economy, and generally, everyone will forget.
It will happen because people like you dont get it. The bailout will reward everyone that was knee deep in this shit instead of letting them fail which is what laissez-faire economists want. And on top of that shit fuck liberals will blame the lack of regulation (lol).
Businesses fail in Capitalism. It's happened before, and would be happening now in the Financial Industry if it wasn't for the bailout. The problem with bailouts is where do you draw the line? Now the Big Three American Auto Companies want bailout money as well. Where will it end? How will we decide who gets bailed out and who doesn't?
business don't just fail; they topple whole cities, whole regions, whole sub-economies. letting large businesses "fail" destroys entire pillars of the economic and social infrastructure. without regulation, you let them hold the rest of us hostage -- you didn't put a security system in place.
-
I want regulation so harsh that investment executives walk with a uncomfortable gait the rest of their lives from the intense anal ravaging they will receive from the long dong of regulation.
-
yup. when you decide to reclassify or bundle a bond based on arbitrary criteria that only serves you in the moment, i want the smack of the regulatory ruler to shatter every bone in your hand
-
business don't just fail; they topple whole cities, whole regions, whole sub-economies. letting large businesses "fail" destroys entire pillars of the economic and social infrastructure. without regulation, you let them hold the rest of us hostage -- you didn't put a security system in place.
Whatever.
When a factory shuts down and the town that was dependent on it suddenly has a 40% unemployment rate, that's not a localized depression. That's the citizens all spontaneously going John Galt!
-
I've no idea what this thread is about but I have faith in Prole's 16 INT.
-
business don't just fail; they topple whole cities, whole regions, whole sub-economies. letting large businesses "fail" destroys entire pillars of the economic and social infrastructure. without regulation, you let them hold the rest of us hostage -- you didn't put a security system in place.
Yes, when businesses that prop up or keep small/local economies going fail, havoc insues. And yes, if large pillar of society businesses fail, then shit gets bad. I don't disagree that regulation is needed. I'm just saying that this bailout set a bad precedent. Now every badly managed company (example the American Auto Companies) will want handouts. And we are already at 3.5 Trillion and growing with with the bailoit so far.
-
Irony. Big bad markets and the need for large good governments.
Well the bottom should soon be here, then I can buy some shares :tophat
-
I'm naming my firstborn Regulus.
-
After Comrade Paulson's hilarious bait and switch performance yesterday, I am now of the opinion that pretty much anyone involved in the destruction of our financial system over the past decade should be publicly executed outside the NYSE. Do it French Revolution style and build a guillotine, let's get 'er done!
Awesome, I'll go round up everyone at the IMF world bank who decided they needed to liquefy the Cold War spoils. I'll leave everybody in the U.S. to you.
-
President Bush offered a ringing endorsement of free-market capitalism on Thursday, asserting that despite the current financial crisis, the system was still “the engine of social mobility” and “the highway to the American dream.”
REAL TALK. :lol
-
business don't just fail; they topple whole cities, whole regions, whole sub-economies. letting large businesses "fail" destroys entire pillars of the economic and social infrastructure. without regulation, you let them hold the rest of us hostage -- you didn't put a security system in place.
Yes, when businesses that prop up or keep small/local economies going fail, havoc insues. And yes, if large pillar of society businesses fail, then shit gets bad. I don't disagree that regulation is needed. I'm just saying that this bailout set a bad precedent. Now every badly managed company (example the American Auto Companies) will want handouts. And we are already at 3.5 Trillion and growing with with the bailoit so far.
That argument for the Big 3 is the massive amounts of direct and indirect job losses that would result from such a failure, as well as the financial ramifications. Where are you getting 3.5 trillion from?
-
If you're going to read Liar's Poker, may as well pick up FIASCO and The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM).
Both will give you more of the gist of what Lewis's article is discussing, along with a narrative concerning the place of derivatives in the global financial shocks from the 80's to late 90's. All three read together will give you a sense of where we were perched circa the early 2000's. Also, how utterly ineffectual Greenspan was (as he's barely mentioned in the latter two books when he was chairman of the Fed). Actually, I take that back. He was highly effective at shielding hedge funds and derivate securities from regulation or scrutiny by his inaction.
Wall Street may feign ignorance, but they all knew what was coming. It was a matter of keeping a smiling public face as they quietly looted the kitty.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/business/economy/14bush.html?ref=business (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/14/business/economy/14bush.html?ref=business)
LEAVE ALREADY
sounds like a legendary QA director I once knew
QA grunt: "We need a week."
QA legend: "You only get 3 days."
QA grunt: "That's not possible."
QA legend: "Test smarter, not harder."
QA grunt: "What does that even mean."
-
business don't just fail; they topple whole cities, whole regions, whole sub-economies. letting large businesses "fail" destroys entire pillars of the economic and social infrastructure. without regulation, you let them hold the rest of us hostage -- you didn't put a security system in place.
Yes, when businesses that prop up or keep small/local economies going fail, havoc insues. And yes, if large pillar of society businesses fail, then shit gets bad. I don't disagree that regulation is needed. I'm just saying that this bailout set a bad precedent. Now every badly managed company (example the American Auto Companies) will want handouts. And we are already at 3.5 Trillion and growing with with the bailoit so far.
The problem, to put it bluntly, is that these idiots are facing no real repercussions for their actions. ANY bailout of ANY company should involve firing the executives, the board of directors, etc etc. If possible it should involve public executions. Instead we're just handing them money and asking them to maybe not fuck up so bad this time, and mumbling something about adding stiffer regulations.
YES, the big 3 should be bailed out. But all of the top brass should get the boot and competent adults should be put in charge. If your decisions or inactions contributed to the problem, you don't deserve to be a part of the solution. A big help could be given to them if the govt. took over their health care plans, which would give a sneak attack beach head in the fight for universal, single payer health care. :shh
-
This sounds like it really is going to be a depression.
What would be cool is if all 3 were allowed to fail and then the US bought all the factories and created a Soviet Style US for for the people program.
-
If you're going to read Liar's Poker, may as well pick up FIASCO and The Rise and Fall of Long Term Capital Management (LTCM).
Both will give you more of the gist of what Lewis's article is discussing, along with a narrative concerning the place of derivatives in the global financial shocks from the 80's to late 90's. All three read together will give you a sense of where we were perched circa the early 2000's.
Thanks for the recommendations. 'Tis the season for finance industry schadenfreude.
-
I think we'll end up avoiding a depression and settle for a deep cutting, long lasting recession.
After the holidays, we'll probably see some more businesses close down its doors or come close to it. After that, there really should not be any more surprises.
-
Yeah, I'm expecting business bloodbath in January, when the holiday numbers end up being disappointing.
Any predictions on how high unemployment will get?
-
Yeah, I'm expecting business bloodbath in January, when the holiday numbers end up being disappointing.
Any predictions on how high unemployment will get?
I predict that by March it will be above 10 percent.
-
Ask me in January
I think the markets are too unpredictable right now. Once the dust starts to settle, after the holidays, it should be easier to see how wide and how deep this affects everyone.
All IMO
-
10-12 seems to be the consensus, so probably a bit higher.
Damn that raised minimum wage!
-
Ooh, how low will the Dow go by inauguration day? I'm saying 7000.
-
Ooh, how low will the Dow go by inauguration day? I'm saying 7000.
probably not much lower than it has been
-
Ooh, how low will the Dow go by inauguration day? I'm saying 7000.
I'm too unsure to even venture a guess. There could be a big-ass freefall once the numbers for December come in.
-
yeah, i sorely doubt this will be a depression -- like cohen said, the banks have to completely fail and stagflation has to occur due to currency backing bustravaganza when the proles run to pull their savings -- but it WILL be the Worst Recession Evar (tm alan greenspan) and i expect to see unemployment peak at a grotesque 12% in march. the kids in college econ classes will be talking about this shit for the next 50 years, until they forget and do it all over again -- but thanks to the federal legalization of gay marriage in 2020, we'll all be getting sodomized in gay rape camps and won't care!
-
i walk by the exchange every day to work.
it's awesome to see all the cops with rifles patrolling the streets keeping us them safe from terrorists us.
-
:lol
-
Ooh, how low will the Dow go by inauguration day? I'm saying 7000.
It will bottom out somewhere in the 7000s.
-
Tell me FoC, what does allowing banks to fail even mean in an environment where top executives are collecting upwards of $100 million for a few years work? Think of what human beings will do for $100, and then multiply that tendency towards deceit & infamy by one million. CEOs and their yes-men Boards will never stand in the way of a fast buck for themselves even if it means the very next guy gets saddled with an impossible mess (see also: Bush administration). The fact that the bank itself might cease to exist is simply not sufficient motivation for them to do anything. Even jail time tends to be a joke for top-level financial fraudsters (see Michael Milken, who was jailed at his multi-million dollar beach home and was 'released' still having a net worth of over $1 billion).
It goes on down the line. Most of the ex-Lehman people in Japan have been snapped up by rivals for salaries commensurate with what they got at Lehman. Japanese banks were delighted to get them! There is no stigma attached to having been part of a failed bank. There may be a few scapegoats, but those are typically people at or near the end of their careers who have more money than God and the best lawyers on the planet to plea-bargain their sentences down to nothing. I'm all for justice and bloody retribution on general principles, but it's not going to make any difference on how financial institutions are run on a day-to-day basis.
-
I'd like it if the CEOs, board members, and large shareholders of these banks were to wear Cultural Revolution like signs around their neck and get jeered by the public, with those people who were fucked over the most in the front rows.
-
I'd like it if the CEOs, board members, and large shareholders of these banks were to wear Cultural Revolution like signs around their neck and get jeered by the public, with those people who were fucked over the most in the front rows.
Might be amusing to watch on a dull Saturday afternoon but it still wouldn't be any kind of disincentive for the next crop of greedy young hot-shots to not take risks with other people's money. There is no disincentive that will work other than not giving them the money.
-
I'd like it if the CEOs, board members, and large shareholders of these banks were to wear Cultural Revolution like signs around their neck and get jeered by the public, with those people who were fucked over the most in the front rows.
Might be amusing to watch on a dull Saturday afternoon but it still wouldn't be any kind of disincentive for the next crop of greedy young hot-shots to not take risks with other people's money. There is no disincentive that will work other than not giving them the money.
I think public executions might temper their, ahem, enthusiasm for putting everyone else in the poor house.
-
I'd like it if the CEOs, board members, and large shareholders of these banks were to wear Cultural Revolution like signs around their neck and get jeered by the public, with those people who were fucked over the most in the front rows.
Might be amusing to watch on a dull Saturday afternoon but it still wouldn't be any kind of disincentive for the next crop of greedy young hot-shots to not take risks with other people's money. There is no disincentive that will work other than not giving them the money.
I think public executions might temper their, ahem, enthusiasm for putting everyone else in the poor house.
how about we introduce the concept of "disappearing" people
it will be novel and new because it will be upper class white people for one