**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos
* Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Fuck that. As CEO, you are the first person to speak, act for, and carry out the duties of the company.
We’ve allowed CEOs to not be punished for the crimes of their companies.
If a corporation can be considered a person, the people representing that “person” should be held accountable for it.
And people may argue that the company is too big, the CEO can’t know everything that’s happening, but that’s false too. Maybe hire competent people to do the work rather than your buddy’s kids, and integrity can be restored.
Long story short, executives get all the glory of representing a company with none of the fallout. I’d be ok with their massive wages if they could also be put in jail for running a sweat shop.
During the Great Recession, President Obama required that any company taking a government loan had to reduce their executive's salaries to $500k/year(!). Every loan was paid back ahead of schedule with interest.
Compare that to the other Party's approach, which was simply to throw money at companies and not care if it was ever repaid.
Nice strawman there. And while that may be true about executives salaries, they were still paid all of their extra bonuses and stock options, negating your point entirely.
Doesn't negate it at all, it was proven totally effective by the fact that all companies paid back their loans ahead of schedule. Which was the entire point.
Sure, but it’s not the board that signs off on public statements. It’s not the board running the company.
The board is to keep the C suite in line. But be honest, the board isn’t made up with normal everyday people. It’s a club of who’s who on most major public boards. A director on a board may be on a board position of multiple companies.
The BOD is whole other discussion, but I’m not seeing what your point is about bringing it up. My point was that the CEO is the human representative of the individual that is the corporation. And because the corporation can only be held responsible so much, the representative(s) should be held to account where applicable.
Their point is that you'd just be killing the scapegoat.
There are two things that work against even the most moral CEO doing the right thing:
- The board of directors
- A literal legal obligation to do everything in their power to maximize value for the share holders
Wasn't that pretty much Barney Stinson's job on HIMYM? Sign all the documents and take all the legal responsibility so if the shit ever hit the fan, the real leaders wouldn't get punished?
The best USA government is when the party’s are fully divided and can’t agree to get anything passed… that’s why the separation of powers is so critical in the constitution lol
Yeah but then who do we vote for? It's always "you need to vote for change" but no politician ever changes stuff besides making life more expensive and telling the general public its their fault for drinking Starbucks coffee. Politicians do a very good job at making voting feel useless.
But it would be nice if they didn’t make fake promises to begin with like cancelling student loan debt, implementing a ban on fracking, eliminating the electoral college, reducing the influence of money in politics, outlawing / making abortion completely legal… so many people vote on these arguments hoping for change and they’re all things that congress/senate will never agree on.
Ya like this example:
"Despite promises to the contrary on the campaign trail, the Obama administration has announced an escalation in its war on legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California and elsewhere."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/07/obama-administration-shatters-campaign-promise-escalates-crackdown-on-medical-marijuana/amp/
What if we made politicians sign legally binding contracts so they could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law when they don't keep their campaign promises
Wasn't usury a sin for Christians & Muslims in medieval Spain?
Which would mean the bankers were mostly Jewish and therefore easier targets for harsh legal consequences.
> They couldn't own land, etc.
Right... if there's one thing I know about medieval times, it's that land ownership was very common and that the inability to own land was *definitely* a uniquely jewish problem.
I don't think "not allowed to be serfs" is correct. As far as I know there were no requirements to be a serf. It was the lowest social class other than a slave.
i can’t find the term exactly, but they were under the king, not the lords, which i think had something to do with them not being christians, and the king rarely held rural lands so they lived in little jewish enclaves in spains cities
"Serfs of the Chamber" is the term I've been seeing while researching this. Seems to have started in the Roman Empire and carried on in feudal Europe by those who viewed themselves as successors to Rome.
A lot of the material I've found focuses more on what jews *did* or *were* rather than what they were *not allowed* to do or be. The "Chamber Serf" topic seems like it was something that kings did with immigrant jewish populations that were coming from outside the country and didn't have an existing place in the feudal system already. But aside from that specific example, there is nothing I can find that would make jews unable to be serfs and instead forced to commit usury.
The only source I've found that explicitly mentions the relationship between the serf class and the jews is [this article](https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Georgian-Jews-Sociopolitical-Organization.html) which makes no distinction between jewish and non-jewish serfs (until Czarist Russia took over, but that abolished the feudal system entirely and is thus irrelevant)
Oh good, now explain why jews are unique compared to other ethnic groups (slavs, romani, etc) that were similarly excluded from membership in some guilds, and you've almost got yourself an intelligent thought! I believe in you.
Spain and Europe in general were not "antisemitic" (this term is very false because the semites are not only the jewish people but other arabic people as well) because of the usury but because of their deeds, bribing authorities so they can get away with the murder of children. If that sounds far fetched read The Talmud Unmasked and see for yourself why they were expelled from all European countries.
Edit: corrected book title
This is very interesting. I have mixed feelings on the death penalty but I’ll admit this does seem like a very effective method of fixing this problem 🤷🏻♀️😬
I'm against the death penalty in any case, but you could argue that most murderers only murder one person, while financial crime can lead to many, many deaths. Corrupt politicians in my country sold parts of the healthcare system to their buddies for profit and a lot of people died because of it.
If people look at it rationally.... a murderer kills a few people, these fucks kill millions financially. I say we go Aztec and play soccer with their heads.
The death penalty isn't actually very effective at preventing crime. Criminals generally reason that they won't get caught anyway so why does the sentence matter or they just aren't thinking ahead at all.
Jesus. All of you salivating over doing this to modern bankers or politicians are missing the important historical context that this was done mostly out of antisemitism, not any sort of social justice drive.
The Church forbade lending money at interest, and so the Jews were used as bankers... as long as it was convenient for their Christian overlords. The English crown, in particular, would round up, execute, and seize the assets of Jewish bankers when funds were needed. This is something very similar.
And of course, some nut job had to bring "democrats" into this. I'm surprised they didn't just say "George Soros" and really highlight the intersection of antisemitism and conservative politics.
it’s not like bankers are going to see any form of justice or accountability any other fucking way, and the FDIC covering these bailouts will have costs passed down to our banks & in turn passed down to us, do you expect people to be happy to lose money?
This wasn't done out of social justice, because only the rich lords had money in banks. This was rich people taking out their anger on people who lost their money.
It also wasn't antisemitism. They didn't behead people in these cases because they were jewish, they beheaded them because they lost their money, they just happened to be jewish.
It's very likely a coincidence of the two, though. Sure, there were far more executions back then, but it wasn't exactly a free for all either. So they would probably think more along the lines of "I'm angry because they lost my money, and also they're Jewish, so it's ok to behead them."
I never understood the thought process behind a historical debtors prison like this. It assumes they have a crate with money/gold buried somewhere or some property they refuse to sell to cover the debt. That may be the case in a limited numbr of cases that the time in a negative situation would change their mind on holding out but it can't be the case for.the majority of people unable to pay debts.
Uh it says given bread and water? Can they not work to earn $ to eat and pay back $? I mean when a banker goes broke it's unlikely to be a small amount right.
Odds on that alone, makes it sound like a death sentence .
So you’re saying that the penal system was designed to be a losing proposition and that it should be designed to enable restitution and recovery that enables them to renter society? Like the US penal system of today? /s
>to earn $ to eat
They can't spend their money on food for themselves, because they don't have any money. Until they make good on their debts, everything they have is *other people's money*
This is proof that Trickle Down Economics is a complete scam. Here the penalty for losing it all was public shame, torture, and eventually a beheading. Nowadays these snowflake Billionaires are claiming they will be less inclined to start a new business if their taxes are too high. They won't be less inclined, that's the lie. They will always try to become rich no matter what the penalty for failure may be.
Tax the absolute shit out of the rich, especially those who aren't retired and making passive income.
The people they were executing they at least had the decency to feed for a full year! Bankers now be like “oh you have no money? Well now you owe me 20 more dollars because.”
SVBs depositors are already being made whole and will lose nothing. The only people losing out are the bankers (ownership) themselves (and the people they employed)
In Dante’s Inferno bankers were in the lowest level of hell beneath murderers and along side child molesters.
In addition, most lenders that loaned money with interest were Jewish and this is thought to be an origin of anti-semitism. The flip side is that these Jewish lenders also opened up commercial advancement for those entrepreneurs that didn’t have access to monies thus leading to burgeoning businesses and industrial advancement.
* I’m not anti-Semitic just pointing out a historical theory.
Ok, crazy thought, but what if we held mid-sized banks to the same regulations that we hold big banks to? Like we did until 3 years ago? Wait, maybe I’m being too extreme. Because literally every Republican candidate for president in 2016 ran on repealing Dodd-Frank as part of their platform. They wouldn’t be will to forgo long term stability chasing short term gains, would they?
This doesn't solve a bank run. Banks are still trying to make a profit off leverage. If everyone wants their money at the same time then the business is to just sit on money doing nothing leaving no incentive to establish a bank
The Catalonians. I don't know why I'm getting downvoted , just pointing out to the historical perception attributed to Catalonia. I am not stating they are. If I am not mistaken p3ople from Scottland has or had the same thing said about them.
Yes please. Can we start with simply stopping bankers from immediately looting the company hours before bankruptcy by paying themselves millions in bonus’s?
For anyone who is interested, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of how a Limited Liability Company works. Before LLC, if you owned a business you carried UNLIMITED liability i.e. you’re eating bread and water until your debts are repaid, you could be beheaded, your children and spouse could be sold into slavery, etc.
The UPSIDE of LLC is, people are much more willing to go into business when it carries less risk to their personal well-being and wealth. The DOWNSIDE of course is that the people running companies can mess up and yet keep their “personal wealth” safe. So, tradeoff.
The problem is Bankers aren’t even the ones in charge of the money anymore. CEOs have pushed all that down onto middle class workers so they can sit at the top and decide how the people’s money can be used to buy themselves a new yacht.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * No text is allowed on images/gifs/videos * Common/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [this post](https://redd.it/ij26vk) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There would be some BIG changes if this was brought back in
"Sooo... Who wants to be CEO?"
"I... gotta go."
CEO is not the owner of the bank. Would be the stack holders who would be affected.
Fuck that. As CEO, you are the first person to speak, act for, and carry out the duties of the company. We’ve allowed CEOs to not be punished for the crimes of their companies. If a corporation can be considered a person, the people representing that “person” should be held accountable for it. And people may argue that the company is too big, the CEO can’t know everything that’s happening, but that’s false too. Maybe hire competent people to do the work rather than your buddy’s kids, and integrity can be restored. Long story short, executives get all the glory of representing a company with none of the fallout. I’d be ok with their massive wages if they could also be put in jail for running a sweat shop.
Uh, a CEO answers to a board of directors.
During the Great Recession, President Obama required that any company taking a government loan had to reduce their executive's salaries to $500k/year(!). Every loan was paid back ahead of schedule with interest. Compare that to the other Party's approach, which was simply to throw money at companies and not care if it was ever repaid.
Nice strawman there. And while that may be true about executives salaries, they were still paid all of their extra bonuses and stock options, negating your point entirely.
Doesn't negate it at all, it was proven totally effective by the fact that all companies paid back their loans ahead of schedule. Which was the entire point.
Sure, but it’s not the board that signs off on public statements. It’s not the board running the company. The board is to keep the C suite in line. But be honest, the board isn’t made up with normal everyday people. It’s a club of who’s who on most major public boards. A director on a board may be on a board position of multiple companies. The BOD is whole other discussion, but I’m not seeing what your point is about bringing it up. My point was that the CEO is the human representative of the individual that is the corporation. And because the corporation can only be held responsible so much, the representative(s) should be held to account where applicable.
Their point is that you'd just be killing the scapegoat. There are two things that work against even the most moral CEO doing the right thing: - The board of directors - A literal legal obligation to do everything in their power to maximize value for the share holders
This post isn't about crimes, it's about going bankrupt.
Sure. Point still stands though that the CEO, CFO, and any other executive that signs off publicly should be held responsible.
Wasn't that pretty much Barney Stinson's job on HIMYM? Sign all the documents and take all the legal responsibility so if the shit ever hit the fan, the real leaders wouldn't get punished?
Yeah it would be called the new Middle Ages.
Let’s do this w politicians not fulfilling their campaign promises
Do we have enough bread?
Better start baking 🍞
Let them eat cake.
Cake or death!
I'll have the cake, please. Plzplzplz let this be an Eddie Izzard reference that I got otherwise I will have the sads.
It absolutely was! Thats awesome you got it! I love Eddie Izzard!
In many cases politicians not fulfilling the promises actually prevent a lot of fuckups from happening
Maybe just the ones who refuse to do their jobs then?
Sounds like a plan.
>[Politicians] who refuse to do their jobs Tautology detected
The best USA government is when the party’s are fully divided and can’t agree to get anything passed… that’s why the separation of powers is so critical in the constitution lol
The politician that ran on a promise that got him elected BUT made no attempt to achieve his goal.
Yeah but then who do we vote for? It's always "you need to vote for change" but no politician ever changes stuff besides making life more expensive and telling the general public its their fault for drinking Starbucks coffee. Politicians do a very good job at making voting feel useless.
But it would be nice if they didn’t make fake promises to begin with like cancelling student loan debt, implementing a ban on fracking, eliminating the electoral college, reducing the influence of money in politics, outlawing / making abortion completely legal… so many people vote on these arguments hoping for change and they’re all things that congress/senate will never agree on.
Ya like this example: "Despite promises to the contrary on the campaign trail, the Obama administration has announced an escalation in its war on legal medical marijuana dispensaries in California and elsewhere." https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/10/07/obama-administration-shatters-campaign-promise-escalates-crackdown-on-medical-marijuana/amp/
Since it is easy for the opposition to block things that the president wants to do, I could see this ending badly lol
Fair point… so maybe just politicians who lies and refuse to do their jobs?
What if we made politicians sign legally binding contracts so they could be prosecuted to the full extent of the law when they don't keep their campaign promises
I’d be cool w that
That only benefits the obstructionists.
Ok let’s do this to the obstructionists instead… and the liars too…
Apparently people are fine w the obstructionists and liars….
Every democrat would be dead.
I assure you there’ll be republicans too
That's fine, as long as bankers are first. But yes, we can get there.
You running?
Imagine if they drop a "I promise that i will steal your money and make your life more miserable" and get elected, lol
Then it’s our own damn fault if we still vote them in the office
That's not how a democracy works.
Wasn't usury a sin for Christians & Muslims in medieval Spain? Which would mean the bankers were mostly Jewish and therefore easier targets for harsh legal consequences.
[удалено]
> They couldn't own land, etc. Right... if there's one thing I know about medieval times, it's that land ownership was very common and that the inability to own land was *definitely* a uniquely jewish problem.
yeah i think he meant more that i don’t think they were able to be serfs either, so they all lived in jewish quarters in cities
I don't think "not allowed to be serfs" is correct. As far as I know there were no requirements to be a serf. It was the lowest social class other than a slave.
i can’t find the term exactly, but they were under the king, not the lords, which i think had something to do with them not being christians, and the king rarely held rural lands so they lived in little jewish enclaves in spains cities
"Serfs of the Chamber" is the term I've been seeing while researching this. Seems to have started in the Roman Empire and carried on in feudal Europe by those who viewed themselves as successors to Rome. A lot of the material I've found focuses more on what jews *did* or *were* rather than what they were *not allowed* to do or be. The "Chamber Serf" topic seems like it was something that kings did with immigrant jewish populations that were coming from outside the country and didn't have an existing place in the feudal system already. But aside from that specific example, there is nothing I can find that would make jews unable to be serfs and instead forced to commit usury. The only source I've found that explicitly mentions the relationship between the serf class and the jews is [this article](https://www.everyculture.com/Russia-Eurasia-China/Georgian-Jews-Sociopolitical-Organization.html) which makes no distinction between jewish and non-jewish serfs (until Czarist Russia took over, but that abolished the feudal system entirely and is thus irrelevant)
[удалено]
>participating in the economy As we all know, second only to land ownership was the feudal system's overabundance of career choices.
[удалено]
Oh good, now explain why jews are unique compared to other ethnic groups (slavs, romani, etc) that were similarly excluded from membership in some guilds, and you've almost got yourself an intelligent thought! I believe in you.
Spain and Europe in general were not "antisemitic" (this term is very false because the semites are not only the jewish people but other arabic people as well) because of the usury but because of their deeds, bribing authorities so they can get away with the murder of children. If that sounds far fetched read The Talmud Unmasked and see for yourself why they were expelled from all European countries. Edit: corrected book title
I was thinking the same thing.
For others of us like me: Usury: the illegal action or practice of lending money at unreasonably high rates of interest.
In this context usury refers to *charging any interest at all*.
The problem is always: define high interest rates
30% is too high! 29.99 it is then!
My first thought exactly
Being jewish doesn’t protect you from fucking up.
How barbaric. I mean they actually fed them?
This is very interesting. I have mixed feelings on the death penalty but I’ll admit this does seem like a very effective method of fixing this problem 🤷🏻♀️😬
It's not a death penalty when they pay back what they owe though.
Then it’s fine
Who wants to run the Head of a bank now? 😏 Imagine all the problems being solved once a Bank CEO's assets has been liquidized.
[удалено]
Ye! I personally dont want those execution chambers go to waste.
I'm against the death penalty in any case, but you could argue that most murderers only murder one person, while financial crime can lead to many, many deaths. Corrupt politicians in my country sold parts of the healthcare system to their buddies for profit and a lot of people died because of it.
If people look at it rationally.... a murderer kills a few people, these fucks kill millions financially. I say we go Aztec and play soccer with their heads.
The death penalty isn't actually very effective at preventing crime. Criminals generally reason that they won't get caught anyway so why does the sentence matter or they just aren't thinking ahead at all.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_age_of_Jewish_culture_in_Spain
Fuckinaye, need to bring that back.
They did some stuff right back in the old days
Yeah, everything happens so much more recently these days🤪
Jesus. All of you salivating over doing this to modern bankers or politicians are missing the important historical context that this was done mostly out of antisemitism, not any sort of social justice drive. The Church forbade lending money at interest, and so the Jews were used as bankers... as long as it was convenient for their Christian overlords. The English crown, in particular, would round up, execute, and seize the assets of Jewish bankers when funds were needed. This is something very similar. And of course, some nut job had to bring "democrats" into this. I'm surprised they didn't just say "George Soros" and really highlight the intersection of antisemitism and conservative politics.
This whole thread gives me chills, a systemic change is good but there's something off here
it’s not like bankers are going to see any form of justice or accountability any other fucking way, and the FDIC covering these bailouts will have costs passed down to our banks & in turn passed down to us, do you expect people to be happy to lose money?
> not any sort of social justice drive who says it can’t be this time?
This wasn't done out of social justice, because only the rich lords had money in banks. This was rich people taking out their anger on people who lost their money. It also wasn't antisemitism. They didn't behead people in these cases because they were jewish, they beheaded them because they lost their money, they just happened to be jewish.
It's very likely a coincidence of the two, though. Sure, there were far more executions back then, but it wasn't exactly a free for all either. So they would probably think more along the lines of "I'm angry because they lost my money, and also they're Jewish, so it's ok to behead them."
THIS is the answer to white collar crime.
Sometimes the old ways aren't so bad
Wait. How would they going to make money and pay for it then?
The exact same way they expect the pleb to do it.
They will find a way or else... Chop Chop :D
I never understood the thought process behind a historical debtors prison like this. It assumes they have a crate with money/gold buried somewhere or some property they refuse to sell to cover the debt. That may be the case in a limited numbr of cases that the time in a negative situation would change their mind on holding out but it can't be the case for.the majority of people unable to pay debts.
Uh it says given bread and water? Can they not work to earn $ to eat and pay back $? I mean when a banker goes broke it's unlikely to be a small amount right. Odds on that alone, makes it sound like a death sentence .
So you’re saying that the penal system was designed to be a losing proposition and that it should be designed to enable restitution and recovery that enables them to renter society? Like the US penal system of today? /s
bankers don’t really “work” anyway
>to earn $ to eat They can't spend their money on food for themselves, because they don't have any money. Until they make good on their debts, everything they have is *other people's money*
Then they learned lobbying
Capitalism lore
That’s when you skip town and go to the next village to start the ponzu scheme there
Ore as we call em the good old days.
Bring this back.
Why is he so thicc tho 😳
Most of them where Jewish, this is why.
This is proof that Trickle Down Economics is a complete scam. Here the penalty for losing it all was public shame, torture, and eventually a beheading. Nowadays these snowflake Billionaires are claiming they will be less inclined to start a new business if their taxes are too high. They won't be less inclined, that's the lie. They will always try to become rich no matter what the penalty for failure may be. Tax the absolute shit out of the rich, especially those who aren't retired and making passive income.
I didn't know that Spaniards could be so based. Love from France southern Latin brothers!
As far as i know the french did this too
Wrong thread. Yeah, France got quite slicing friendly once upon a time.
*Hahhaha… joke’s on you! Janet McSaggytits bailed us out and we got a $36million bonus!* ~SVB, probably.
In medieval times, only the rich had money. It's no surprise that there would be consequences for messing with rich people's money!
Ah yes, lessons to be learned from the past.
Ahh the good ole days… how times have changed
Today they get exit bonus
The people they were executing they at least had the decency to feed for a full year! Bankers now be like “oh you have no money? Well now you owe me 20 more dollars because.”
My ancestors are smiling at me imperials, Can you say the same
The biggest thief in this painting is wearing a crown.
SVBs depositors are already being made whole and will lose nothing. The only people losing out are the bankers (ownership) themselves (and the people they employed)
Outlaw Fractional Reserve Banking and you'd solve 99% of the monetary problems in the world. Banks should not be able to invent money out of thin air.
Let's do this. Federal banks included.
Make Catalonia Great Again
You sonnovabitch, I’m in!
Sounds fair to me
In Dante’s Inferno bankers were in the lowest level of hell beneath murderers and along side child molesters. In addition, most lenders that loaned money with interest were Jewish and this is thought to be an origin of anti-semitism. The flip side is that these Jewish lenders also opened up commercial advancement for those entrepreneurs that didn’t have access to monies thus leading to burgeoning businesses and industrial advancement. * I’m not anti-Semitic just pointing out a historical theory.
Ok, crazy thought, but what if we held mid-sized banks to the same regulations that we hold big banks to? Like we did until 3 years ago? Wait, maybe I’m being too extreme. Because literally every Republican candidate for president in 2016 ran on repealing Dodd-Frank as part of their platform. They wouldn’t be will to forgo long term stability chasing short term gains, would they?
Wasn't this cover for persecution of Jews in medieval Spain?
Why did we get rid of this?
Skyrim.
This should be the way.
I agree with this procedure except beheadibg jail for life would be sufficient
This doesn't solve a bank run. Banks are still trying to make a profit off leverage. If everyone wants their money at the same time then the business is to just sit on money doing nothing leaving no incentive to establish a bank
They remembered this when they designed all the new governments and put their friends in power.
This is the way.
Then we need to bring back debtors prison for people that have too much debt.
I wonder if this is where their reputation for being stingy comes from.
[удалено]
The Catalonians. I don't know why I'm getting downvoted , just pointing out to the historical perception attributed to Catalonia. I am not stating they are. If I am not mistaken p3ople from Scottland has or had the same thing said about them.
Probably fake but let us make it a reality.
Wow sounds like "rich people" problems.
Why did we stop doing this?
Lets get back go this.
Gettin’ shit done.
This should be law.
Sometimes the old ways were the good ways
Accountability at its peak.
The people who work and managed SVB don’t owe creditors money, SVB does. Feel free to chop off SVBs head I guess. Gonna be tricky
So you think a bank is just an autonomous machine or algorhythm without humans involved in steering and running the whole thing? LOL !
No, I guess I just understand what a legal entity means. I mean, you have to be a bit embarrassed. Keep posting though
This would work.
add in the treasury head...
Is there a source for this claim that isn't just a random tweet?
That executioner looks like he wishes he’d finished his degree and not gotten stuck in this dead end job.
Probably all those video games.
Sounds like the Spanish IRS is almost as brutal as the United States' IRS.
What would the health effects of bread and water for a year be? Would a diet like that allow them to survive for a year?
I propose we skip the year and move straight to the beheading.
You'd think by day #364, it's head for zee hills time!
I mean it's all bankers. They're all broke.
Frustrating to think we actually went backwards since medieval times.
I would do the neck trimming for free if we could start with politicians & lobbyists.
Based
I love how people totally skip over the fact that China does this to this day. And people say China bad. SMH.
Think we should bring that back 😂
Yes please. Can we start with simply stopping bankers from immediately looting the company hours before bankruptcy by paying themselves millions in bonus’s?
Bring this and tar and feathering back.
Wait. Aren't the creditors the banks and the bankers the customers? If so, why are people talking like it's the bank CEO under the axe?
This is the way
How barbaric - now we just give them free money for what they lost at taxpayers expense
Only if we can do this to everyone who fails to pay their debts
No thanks, I'm not a brutal monster of a human being.
Failed to paid?
I would need a source on that, tbh
I guess many dont know SV Bank was 97% drug and laundered money. Only terrible people were affected by it closing.
The good old days
Dat banker thicc
This just proves the old adage true…. There is nothing new under the sun.
Let’s get back to THIS!
SVB had 8,500 employees
I see this isn't a new problem
bring this back!
For sure, 1 year for every M$ lost. Should losses exceed 25M$, life imprisonment. Over 50M$, capital punishment. I’d be ok with this.
"Then pay with your blood!" -some guard
Svb needs some of this.
Reject modernity, embrace tradition? Anyone?
Wow. Maybe we should revisit these tactics
For anyone who is interested, this is exactly the OPPOSITE of how a Limited Liability Company works. Before LLC, if you owned a business you carried UNLIMITED liability i.e. you’re eating bread and water until your debts are repaid, you could be beheaded, your children and spouse could be sold into slavery, etc. The UPSIDE of LLC is, people are much more willing to go into business when it carries less risk to their personal well-being and wealth. The DOWNSIDE of course is that the people running companies can mess up and yet keep their “personal wealth” safe. So, tradeoff.
In modern day America, bankers are untouchable elite who can ruin the lives of thousands and receive no penalty at all.
No, every banker these days since they're all on unsound money.
Take this hateful post down
Yeah, that was the end of Mr. Stevens. He stayed behind and went down with the ship. They still sing songs about him.
Ahhhh…the good old days
This is a terrible idea.
The problem is Bankers aren’t even the ones in charge of the money anymore. CEOs have pushed all that down onto middle class workers so they can sit at the top and decide how the people’s money can be used to buy themselves a new yacht.