It’s not rational. I guess no “hate” really is, but it’s especially discouraging to see it in this context.
You can complain all you want, you can sue all you want, you can put the perps in jail all you want but the little guy on the street that did everything correctly and honestly is still going to take it in the shorts for a long time to come. The only POS that will benefit from all this are the blood sucking lawyers. The honest hard working guy that palyed by the rules will still be out tens of thousands of dollars in lost equity on their homes that are now worth nothing and yet they continue to make their mortagage payments becasue they pledged their honor to faithfully repay the the loan they took out to finance the American Dream! Hey RS why don’t you do a story on the ambulance chasing scum bag lawyers that will be racking in the TENS of MILLIONS of dollars from all the law suits generated by this fiasco and how NONE of it will make it down to the people who actually lost something.
It seems to me that “Slim’s” vitriol would be better directed at bankers and regulators and politicians. Worse, a re-invigorated and independent legal profession and lawsuits – lots and lots of lawsuits – are probably the only real solution to this whole financial crisis thing, which is of course in reality a rule of law crisis. But the prevalence of undifferentiated hatred for lawyers typified by Slim’s comment bespeaks the unlikelihood of anything like that coming to pass: after all, people like Slim sit on juries.
The need for independent lawyering has never been greater, and much of it could be directed at Wall Street. There’s irony aplenty in that, of course, since we have a lot of unemployed or underemployed lawyers looking for something to do. Matching needs with providers is supposed to be a strength of the “free market”, so it appears ours must be faltering. At least when it comes to the legal profession.
It’s a chicken and egg problem too, to some extent: it’s not as if you can just file pleadings and then argue before a judge who is even handed. Decades of unapologetic favoritism toward government, bank and insurance company have taken their toll. Complaints of the have-nots against the haves are at this point not simply dismissed but greeted with derision and scorn.
Slim could be a Manhattan federal judge for all I know. I wouldn’t be shocked if that were true.
Lawyers on Strike 
I still think you’ll need a strong legal foundation to *mandate* those prosecutions:
28th Amendment
“Corporations are not persons in any sense of the word and shall be granted only those rights and privileges that Congress deems necessary for the well-being of the People. Congress shall provide legislation defining the terms and conditions of corporate charters according to their purpose; which shall include, but are not limited to; 1 prohibitions against any corporation becoming so large its failure would pose a threat to national security or harm the general economy, 2 prohibitions against any form of interference in the affairs of government, education, and news media, and 3 provisions for civil and criminal penalties to be paid by corporate executives for violation of the terms of a corporate charter.”
LikeLike
Hi. Not sure how your comment is relevant to the post, which has nothing to do with corporate this or that.
The corporation has become a political bugaboo for some people and I’m not really sure why. A corporation is an organization like lots of other organizations, with by-laws and structure and forms for governance. I think they are almost entirely state law creations, not federal.
I think your proposed amendment is grounded in ignorance and a largely irrational fixation on corporations as being a source of mischief, but perhaps you can explain it better than I can understand it at this point. Feel free if you are so inclined.
LikeLike
“Hi. Not sure how your comment is relevant to the post, which has nothing to do with corporate this or that.”
I was referring to your statement: “The need for independent lawyering has never been greater, and much of it could be directed at Wall Street.” “Wall Street” are primarily corporations, yes?
“The corporation has become a political bugaboo for some people and I’m not really sure why.”
Because you can’t seem to find enough lawyers to clean up its corruption? It seems to be a legal bugaboo for you, yes?
“A corporation is an organization like lots of other organizations, with by-laws and structure and forms for governance.”
A corporation is an organization. Organizations incorporate. My amendment would write those by-laws with the good of society in mind as opposed to the special interests of its stockholders.
“I think they are almost entirely state law creations, not federal.”
Yes. That’s the problem. My amendment seeks to correct that. The corporations targeted by this amendment do business not just nationally, but globally. That’s a huge problem.
“I think your proposed amendment is grounded in ignorance and a largely irrational fixation on corporations as being a source of mischief,”
Maybe you could explain how it’s ignorant or why it it would be irrational.
“… but perhaps you can explain it better than I can understand it at this point.”
I could; but judging from your response you’re not really interested in learning any new tricks. But just for the hell of it: assuming the Sun rose in the West one day and this amendment came to be ratified; what would be the legal consequences for our culture, the two party political system, central banking, education, journalism, Wall Street, and society in general? All other considerations aside, do you have an opinion on its merits ?
LikeLike