-
已有(69)人发表了评论
- 5 回复 举报 [ 30楼 游客 (32.211.x.x) ] 发表于
- 官司赢了，花了上千万的诉讼费由谁来买单？为什么不反诉美国政府？除了诉讼费还要他们罚款一个亿！ 估计银行肯定也有问题，只是不至于导致金融危机！
- 2 回复 举报 [ 31楼 jetfighter ] 发表于
- 既然不该发生的发生了，还能去打官司，而且最后打赢了，说明你虽然出于明显的政治目的依然拒绝承认这个制度优越，你至少不敢否认这个制度还有改正错误的能力，人们还可以此拍电影，并且指名道姓地批判鞭打政府犯下的这个错误。这一条就足够让你和你主子恶心很长时间了。
29楼 游客(72.80.x.x): 不要什么都扯上优越的民主制度。这家银行是完完全全被冤枉的。这本来不该发生的事而发生了，这说明这个社会有问题了。
- 4 回复 举报 [ 32楼 游客 (173.244.x.x) ] 发表于
- 就是扯鸡巴蛋的东西，还泥马唐人街怒了，忽悠S B呢？忘了曼哈顿的中国女人，谷开来的胜诉在美国，全特么是大忽悠。李文和违反保密协议去大陆不申报，丫心里没鬼才怪。
- 2 回复 举报 [ 35楼 游客 (100.2.x.x) ] 发表于
- It was the politically ambitious, likely liberal, procecuters who tried to gain their fames by “squeezing the softest persimmons”. Instead, what they got were concrete blocks that they could not bite into. They did successfully extauted tens of billions from the Big guys who would rather settle than fight. After all, the real cilprits for the subprime induced GFC were the opticians who pressured banks to divide mortgages to lower income families who otherwise could not secure one. Banks then packaged the lower quality loans and sold them as securities products as banks did not want to take the risk but investors, hoping for better yields, did. Then when thing finally fell apart they went after the banks. This is similar to the tobacco cases. Buyers knew the risk but sue any way as long as the Big govermment was on their side. Notwithstanding, though, there was a few bad egg banks that purposely cheated investors. The Chinese bank in the case was not even offering subprime loans excep