Despite what Redditors like to say, the big banks have done a surprisingly good job at self regulating since the financial crisis. That said, these regulations will probably lax as people get more confident and comfortable with taking risks.
> a surprisingly good job at self regulating since the financial crisis.
The financial crisis was less than ten years ago. That's like calling a drunk driver "responsible" for going a whole week sober since that time they crashed into a minivan and killed an entire family.
Do people who think banks and corporations are good at self-regulating not look at history? The same pattern has repeated for hundreds of years—it’d be embarrassing and horrible if a drunk driver didn’t learn their lesson after a decade, but we haven’t learned our lesson after at least a century.
Hundreds is a bit of a hyperbole here. We've only had modern corporate America for maybe the last 150 years. Pre-industrial companies didn't have as much power or clout as large behemoth enterprises do today.
We’ve only had the Internet for a few decades, but that doesn’t mean we can’t draw parallels between the dot-com bubble and what happened before, or that we shouldn’t have learned from the past.
In this case it's not the same driver though. The majority of people in finance had nothing to do with mortgage backed securities, and a lot of leadership has changed in the past decade.
Remind us which leaders got fired? Wall Street makes the same excuses every time—oh, it wasn’t a majority of us, and those guys are retired anyways.
The same executives that paid fines and damages neither left nor were prosecuted. Perhaps this is because they aren’t guilty, and they just ponied up the money to make people happy. I think most people will agree that it is more plausible that at least some of the people who are still executives were guilty of at least incompetence.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/how-wal...
People in high positions never get fired. Even Nixon resigned before he was forced to leave office. Do you really think that the board of directors would want to keep someone responsible for causing their stock to drop 99%? I'm sure you can dig up some 10 year old Bloomberg articles to see how leadership changed, but only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.
This is all beside my original point anyways. I'm not saying things are perfect right now. My point was that people don't give credit to how common self regulation is because they don't care enough to pay attention to it.
> a lot of leadership has changed in the past decade.
> People in high positions never get fired.
Can you explain how you aren’t contradicting yourself? The first quote is from your original comment.
> I'm sure you can dig up some 10 year old Bloomberg articles to see how leadership changed, but only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.
Come on. I gave you an Atlantic article that claims no one suffered any real consequences. In contrast, the sum total of your argument is that “only a few people can make sense of the significance of these changes.” That sounds a lot like mysticism to me— are you operating on faith?
It's not a contradiction. People rarely get fired when they screw up in most white collared jobs. They usually "voluntarily" leave. The Atlantic article focuses on criminal consequences, not leadership changes. My argument is that the board of directors and colleagues would know a lot more than you or me about who to blame and deserved to be asked to leave, and it's in their best interests to make the right decision.
