Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by vdaniuk | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

vdaniuk

So why don't we see headlines like "EU clamps down on banking industry and corruption in financial institutions"?

View on HN

Because the E.U. already does and it's not news.

http://www.transparencyinternational.eu/focus_areas/eu-finan...

Really? Transparency International is not a government organization but a non-profit registered in Belgium.

edit: HN posting limit is extremely annoying, providing no way for a sustained discussion within multiple threads.

...Who runs a websites containing a series of announcements and headlines about financial regulation in the E.U.

Next you'll say those aren't true headlines, a la no-true-scotsman.

How exactly the Transparency International website that contains public statements critical of E.U. financial regulation backs up your point?

Because it's proof of E.U. financial regulation. What is your point?

That regulation of some sort exists, not that it is effective or "clamping down"

The Transparency International website that you've linked does talk about financial regulation in the EU, but Transparency International's position is that the regulators have failed - that they have not, in fact, clamped down on fraud and corruption, and that close ties between regulators and the banks they're regulating have made them unwilling to act. You're using a web page criticising regulators for failing to take action as proof that they didn't fail to take action.

I was using it as proof that E.U. financial regulation (however shitty it may seem) isn't new, since TI does a good job as watch dog and lists many examples that date back.

Perhaps provide a _Rebuttal N:_ in the relevant post as you provided this edit.

Here's a hint, along with some advice. You can get around the posting limit by clicking on the direct link of the comment you are responding to. Then again, it's there for a reason, so it's probably best to make sure your reply at least has some context and analysis, so the discussion doesn't devolve into a bunch of one line responses, which rarely convey enough information to make the conversation worth while.

You do. HSBC was fined billions of dollars for money laundering. Although some argue that convictions of individuals would be better.

Nobody got a criminal conviction. How are we OK about this?

Rumor has it that their profits from money laundering were substantially greater than the fines, though.

I don't think we have to call that just a rumor. I haven't heard anyone argue they weren't. But it's not important what the bank paid.

Everyone involved got their bonuses. No one was responsible. No one paid back. I don't think anyone involved cried over any fines the company had to pay.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com