Hacker News Reader

Comment by holly4 | Hacker News Reader

Well I hope some one goes to jail. Though my hopes aren't high after 2008.

Time Machine: "Uber settles with DOJ. While admitting to no wrongdoing, Uber agrees to pay $1.2 million fine and $232 in investigation costs."

Until people that OK'd, knew and /or executed a certain action go to jail, nothing will change. Lawyer fees and fines now are a tiny cost of doing business for big corps.

This is the sad state of hypernormalism we're now in. We acknowledge the rich get a different standards of justice, but feel powerless (and rightly so) to do anything about it.

Now? When was the golden age where that wasn't the case?

French Revolution? /s

The Bolshevik Revolution of 1917.

A century this year.

"kill the rich" is still a different standard of justice.

Probably Billions but they'll get a settlement to be the only company to operate nationally with immunity.

Except Google pays way too much in lobbying for that.

No court has the power to grant Uber or any company the ability to operate nationally, let alone with immunity.

There are many overlapping laws, in cities, states & counties. Uber is subject to all the relevant laws in any area it operates--but, eg, Portland's laws only matter in Portland, Austin's in Austin, etc. So, for example, Uber chose to leave Austin because Austin passed laws that Uber already obeys in NY, but did not wish to in Texas.

What happened in 2008?

the great recession.

he/she is talking about bankers.

I'm guessing financial crisis precipitated by corporate crime/fraud on massive scale, going unpunished?

Oh that seems reasonable. I'm not really sure it was so obvious that I deserved down votes.

I gave you an up-vote.. it makes sense that "2008 means financial crisis" but on the other hand many things happened in 2008 and not all of them had to do with that crisis. Especially if you are not in Financial Services. One would argue that the crisis started a lot earlier, or that in many countries the actual crisis became apparent in 2009-2010-2011.

Not everyone in this forum lives in the USA and people should remember that :)

In addition 2008 was 9 years ago. There are people here today that were 7 or 8 years old at the time. They might know that things were rough if a parent lost a job - but are unlikely to have the wider context.

I also up-voted you, since asking for clarification to understand an implied connection (to an unmentioned event) is a completely reasonable thing to do. I would have done the same if I didn't see the connection, and everyone should be encouraged to post questions if something is not clearly stated.

In 2008 there was a global financial crisis that was caused, in part, by criminal actors in the financial industry yet there were no criminal convictions.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-wall-street-execs-werent-...

I don't really understand why people say this.

2008 was really the popping of an investment bubble due to business incompetence and exuberance among many actors. I don't really see that as a criminal act. If that were the case, then all VC employees should be arrested for causing the 2001 bubble. The only argument that really has any merit is the one that rating agencies misled investors, so I can see some action being done there.

Whereas here with Uber, there are clear laws being broken - very different in my opinion.

Incompetence can be criminal

Much more rarely than some people seem to think, though.

If you are still confused about the criminal acts that occurred, read more about REPO 105:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repo_105

I'm not sure criminal is the right word here. The suit was settled for $10M, and there are conflicting interpretations as to whether that accounting maneuver was actually illegal or not. Given that the case never went to trial, it still remains up in the air.

That is a pretty weak example since it even says in the article that the window dressing maneuver was probably within the GAAP principles and the regulatory bodies were aware of the practice.

It kind of goes to my point that it seem to be more of incentive and business failure than a criminal one. Being aggressive with your company and then failing isn't a crime.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com