Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
Here's John Stewart's take on the HSBC thing
I'm not sure who has the authority to punish them, but I believe the task belongs to either the British Government or the UN.
edited 10th Jan '13 1:45:13 PM by DeviantBraeburn
Everything is Possible. But some things are more Probable than others. JEBAGEDDON 2016
Quite. American Regulatory Authorities can issue a fine, but since the firm isn't an American company, they can't press charges — and anyway, even if they did, they'd need British approval*
Keep Rolling OnYou've got to find them first, and have a solid case against them — that is the hard part...
EDIT: ...and who knows who else they've been banking for?
edited 10th Jan '13 2:03:48 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On@Achaemenid
: My point is that the article claims that it saves money, yet unless I'm missing something, it costs them money.
HSBC is short for Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation - and while it's a British owned bank, East Asia is indeed where they make most of their money.
And since East Asian governments tend to take a very dim view indeed of involvement in drug trafficing, HSBC may be in far more trouble than you'd think.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.Biden sees support for universal background check for gun owners
You can read the business journalist Robert Peston's take on it here
...and here are some important parts:
This could have destroyed HSBC's relatively small US retail banking business and - more importantly - severely impaired its ability to conduct business anywhere in the world: the reputational damage of being blacklisted in America would have been terrible and, without access to dollars from the New York Fed, HSBC's vast international wholesale operations would have been in trouble.
As Mr Breuer put it: "The goal is not to bring HSBC down."
And, Secondly:
When a bank becomes a lynchpin of the global economy, in the way that HSBC has done, are the hands of justice shackled in relation to it - because a proper spanking would be too much for a fragile global economic recovery to bear?
It is an important question. And one that the parliamentary committee on banking standards here in the UK, chaired by Andrew Tyrie, will probably be examining.
To be clear, however, even 30 years ago, before banks became quite as big and global as HSBC, it was never easy for the authorities to strip a bank of its licence. The disruptive impact on savers, businesses and the wider economy was always a significant deterrent to imposing the ultimate sanction on a misbehaving bank.
And for what it's worth - and you can judge whether it's worth a lot or a little - bankers themselves do not believe they're being given an easy ride by the authorities.
The boss of one of the world's biggest banks told me over the weekend that the greatest threat to the recovery of his bank and of the British economy - in his view - is the ever rising burden of fines and compensation faced by all banks for their sloppy, reckless and rule-breaking ways in the boom years.
Even for HSBC, there may be painful ramifications for many years yet of the money-laundering settlement.
First, because HSBC's former chairman, Lord Green, is a minister in David Cameron's government, the opposition Labour party has a powerful interest in shouting loudly and often about what Mr Breuer called the laundering by HSBC of billions of dollars accrued by narcotics' traffickers and others.
Paul Krugman declined the Treasury job that over 200,000 people petitioned him for.
![]()
![]()
He can not decline something he hasnt been offered
Canadians offer to build a free bridge Detroit.
Problem? The other bridge, the ambassador bridge, the only other bridge from Canada to Michigan, is owned, by a single billionaire...
and thats where things get complicated.
edited 10th Jan '13 5:23:48 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Yea!
We wont let those Canadian communist trick us into importing European socialism with their atheist bridge.
America: 1 Canada: 0
But seriously, what other excuse would you have to even try to block the building of such a bridge?
edited 10th Jan '13 6:16:57 PM by Baff
I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.Yeah, by a 2 point margin if memory of the segment serves.
"The marvel is not that the Bear posts well, but that the Bear posts at all."

If I was Obama I'd be worried that some Right-Wing Militia Fanatic would come and have a go after I left office. The level of bilious hatred from the far-right is astonishing, and it only takes one nutjob to take it seriously.
Also, I remember having a conversation with Michael Howard (a former British Home Secretary during The Troubles - he visited my school) who said that living with constant security protection is actually extremely grating and unpleasant. It isn't anything to do with the security men, just the constant being watched. Obama's probably doing this because he feels they need it, not because he wants it.
edited 10th Jan '13 1:35:24 PM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei