Hundreds of financial institutions with greater or lesser responsibility for the crash in 2008 went under in those years[0]. The shareholders in almost all of these companies lost all of their money and the responsible employees lost their jobs. This includes some of the most guilty companies, like Washington Mutual, Countrywide Financial, IndyMac, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch (through First Franklin Financial), Bear Stearns. But all these companies are completely forgotten now.

Instead everyone hates on Goldman Sachs. Sure, Goldman Sachs deserves hate, but of the big banks they were the _least_ guilty of the crash in 2008. Not saying they were saints, but in 2008 they were the least bad.

0: This list only covers banks, not non-banks like Countrywide Financial: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bank_failures_in_the_U...

When you have people at the top of those institutions who made those decisions, and made enough money during their tenures to weather any length of unemployment and were sometimes even given a severance worth more money than the average American makes in a lifetime, going out of business or losing a job simply isn't enough.

It's one of the only investments of labor and time where the risk is not proportional to the return.

In order to create risk, you have to either claw back their money through civil action - which you can't because the entire point of incorporation is to separate the business entity from one's personal finances - or look at criminal charges. Otherwise, you have created a class of hyper-wealthy people who have no real incentive to perform in a way that is for the best interests of shareholders or society at large.

It's the reason we tie so much for regular people to employment in the US, like healthcare. Many argue that if you give the rank-and-file worker the kind of long-term financial security that just one or two years of being a C-suite executive at a major company, they won't work as hard. They won't make the best decisions. They won't be the dynamic workers our economy supposedly wants. That logic goes right out the window when a board goes hunting for a new CEO.

There's zero real risk involved.

>The shareholders in almost all of these companies lost all of their money

How is that penalizing those responsible?

Isn't it a pretty big leap to go from penalizing those selling packaged fraudulent loans to the public (whom, to my knowledge were never prosecuted) to the shareholders losing money as protection against it happening again?