Tony Blair: hanging bankers won't help
Discussion
martin84 said:
Say what you want about Blair but at least he'll be remembered in 25 years time.
As a grasping, self serving, Bush-hand-puppet war criminal.FWIW I agree that Cameron and Osbourne are comparatively tame and spinelss and, certainly as far as politics go, I'd side with the opinion that says it's not enough to do no evil, but rather you must actively do good. I've never seen a more flat-footed government than the current one.
Tony likes Money, and he's not going to bite the hand that feed him. I actually think he is right about this, but that's sort of coincidental.Fittster said:
As ever Tony is wrong.
"Should we kill bankers? I don’t mean as vengeance for their past misdeeds. Instead, I mean that, if banks are to remain in the private sector, the death penalty should be part of the new regulatory regime.
The problem with any regulation is that regulators are always at an informational disadvantage; outsiders know less than insiders. There is therefore a danger that breaches of the new regulatory code - excessive risk-taking - will not be identified quickly; as Warren Buffett said, it’s only after the tide’s gone out that you can see who’s been swimming naked.
This means that if the penalties for breaches are low, bank bosses might have an incentive to ignore regulations - as they discount punishments by the probability of getting away with their crimes. To prevent this, punishments must be huge.
What I’m advocating here is a system of perfect deterrence, as discussed by Saul Smilansky in 10 Moral Paradoxes; if the punishment is high enough, no crime will occur.
What’s more, the death penalty will focus bosses’ minds. As Chesley Sullenberger showed us, when a man faces the likelihood of death, he finds a way to do a great job. The notion that bank bosses require big bonuses to incentivize them rather than the threat of punishments was always a self-serving fiction, not a realistic psychological proposition.
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_...
That must be why the murder rate is zero in US states with the death penalty. Oh, hang on..... um."Should we kill bankers? I don’t mean as vengeance for their past misdeeds. Instead, I mean that, if banks are to remain in the private sector, the death penalty should be part of the new regulatory regime.
The problem with any regulation is that regulators are always at an informational disadvantage; outsiders know less than insiders. There is therefore a danger that breaches of the new regulatory code - excessive risk-taking - will not be identified quickly; as Warren Buffett said, it’s only after the tide’s gone out that you can see who’s been swimming naked.
This means that if the penalties for breaches are low, bank bosses might have an incentive to ignore regulations - as they discount punishments by the probability of getting away with their crimes. To prevent this, punishments must be huge.
What I’m advocating here is a system of perfect deterrence, as discussed by Saul Smilansky in 10 Moral Paradoxes; if the punishment is high enough, no crime will occur.
What’s more, the death penalty will focus bosses’ minds. As Chesley Sullenberger showed us, when a man faces the likelihood of death, he finds a way to do a great job. The notion that bank bosses require big bonuses to incentivize them rather than the threat of punishments was always a self-serving fiction, not a realistic psychological proposition.
http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_...
I forget which one but one retired High Court judge said he had yet to meet a defendant who had intended to get caught.
Having said that, I do agree that bankers (and politicians) that either cock up or are fraudulent do seem to get away with it too often so some form of punishment is required. It'd be better to hit them in the pocket though as that is what motivates them.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff