Main > Everything Else
Black monday coming up?
shmokes:
Chad, you're not even making sense. Are you really accountable for Joe Smith's mortgage? You are exactly the same as "smack in the middle of their punishment" whether it's the lenders or borrowers being punished, whether they're punished equally or disproportionately, whether they're held accountable or liable. Anyway, you're the one who brought up liability and keeps bringing it up. I'm talking about accountability. I'm talking about where the blame ought to rest. I defined exactly what I mean by accountability in my previous post. If what you mean by accountability is different than that, explain it to me so we can be on the same page.
I can't even guess at what you mean by liability being individual while accountability is apparently not. This conversation started out by my disagreeing with you about who was more to blame, lenders or debtors. And you've been saying things like, "personal accountability," and, "responsible for their decisions."
ChadTower:
The difference is that I'm talking morality and you're talking law. The two have little in common.
I am sharing in the punishment for Joe Smith's mortgage. See that trillion dollars being tossed into the toilet by the feds? Where do you think that came from? It came from everyone - not only us but millions of people who haven't even been born yet. Legally, until now, I was not liable for his problems. Suddenly I am. So are my kids and their kids. Those ---uvulas--- are morally accountable for what they have done and no discussion amongst attorneys is going to change that.
I'm tired of paying for the negligence of others. Hell I can't even plant bushes on the edge of my yard. A couple weeks ago for the second time a drunk driver hopped the sidewalk and drove right through my bushes. Didn't get caught this time either. At least this time it wasn't a snowplow.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 08, 2008, 10:05:15 am ---
Is it that the innocent should share the punishment of those guilty of massive negligence?
--- End quote ---
I think his point is that you shouldn't cut off your nose to spite your face. You should act in your own best interest, even if that means that someone else doesn't get what's coming to him. I don't mean to start a debate over whether this bailout is in your best interest or not. That's beside the point.
Also, he is definitely not saying that they should share the punishment, but rather that there are consequences that the innocent are stuck with whether they like it or not, so they should do whatever they can to minimize the consequences. Obviously they aren't being punished. They're just victims who need to do the best with what they've got. Coming out unscathed, innocent or not, is simply not an option. I don't know how you can get around that fact.
shmokes:
--- Quote from: ChadTower on October 08, 2008, 10:27:43 am ---
The difference is that I'm talking morality and you're talking law. The two have little in common.
I am sharing in the punishment for Joe Smith's mortgage.
--- End quote ---
I'm not talking about the law. You said it takes two to tango and I said ---fudgesicle--- that one of these groups is far more culpable than the other. Hell, I even described it as one person doing something evil while the other did something stupid. If that's not talking about morality, I don't know what is. I brought up the difference between murder and manslaughter to illustrate the importance of knowledge, not to suggest that creditors or debtors are going to be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter.
Anyway, your characterization of laws being divorced from morals is absurd. We didn't just randomly decide to make a bunch of arbitrary rules. Knowledge is relevant to murder precisely because of its moral aspect. If Jimmy's walking down the aisle and trips over my foot because he wasn't watching where he was going, I'm not the same as accountable as if I see him coming and deliberately stick my foot out to trip him. Regardless of legal liability, in one case I have done something morally wrong, and in the other I have not. Same result, but totally different accountability analysis and it hinges on knowledge -- accident vs. deliberately trying to hurt others.
I don't even know why we're talking about whether you deserve to be punished. That has absolutely nothing to do with the accountability that either of us were talking about. We were talking about who was more blameworthy between the lenders and the debtors. But just to move things along why don't we just get it out of the way right now? I agree with you 100% that you do not deserve to pay for either the lenders' or the debtors' bad behavior and the fact that you have to is atrocious.
ark_ader:
Wow Chad, look like you pressed Shmokes microswitch there. :o
I think it time for a change, a global change.
I think a reset should work after all the panic is gone, and markets start to stabilize again.
I was born in Los Angeles, and would like to have a house there, but pay $90,000.00 for it instead of $300,000.00. House prices, fuel, food and arcade parts is getting more expensive. Now we have to bail out the banks who made you feel small when you went for a loan. Yeah sure.
Change is a good thing, even if it hurts. Especially the banks. :applaud:
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version