From Occupy NH from someone trying to use the victim card (edited lightly) with respect to the finanicial meltdown and who was "immoral one" (and yes, a trick question was presented):
Everyone was trying to get something for nothing – starting with those who signed the no income documentation/no down payment required mortgages to the very larger banks who got bailed out.
All of it is based on leverage, rent-seeking and moral hazards.
Some lost their homes and ruined their credit rating other made their million dollar bonuses and got bailed out with taxpayer money because they were too big to fail.
Are they morally equivalent in your eyes?
My response was:
I think you answered your own question:
Are they morally equivalent in your eyes?
With your outstanding observation of:
Everyone was trying to get something for nothing – starting with those who signed the no income documentation/no down payment required mortgages to the very larger banks who got bailed out.
Essentially, you showed that everyone was Greedy – the outlook was that "I’m gonna get mine, no matter the ramifications". These were failures of personal morality.
Exhibit A (the "no doc" mortgagee) who got something they hadn’t earned (and fraudulently in my opinion) to Exhibit B (the banks that put themselves at risk and the politicians that enabled them (or in certain cases with their pet banks, profited from)).
Each case is morally equivalent – as they expected something for nothing from others.
Exhibit A – The "no doc-ers"; with no skinny in the game (i.e., no equity in a house), they played the risk game with other peoples’ money. The "no doc-ers" put those other people at risk even as they just walked away and left the keys.
Exhibit B – The banks; with no skinny in the game (i.e., no equity in the mortgages they sold), they played the risk game with other peoples’ money. The banks put the system at risk even as they got paid.
And let me add into the mix:
Exhibit C – The politicians who enabled both Exhibit A & B and provided the moral hazard that merely prompted A & B in give into their "greedy sides" by yet again using other peoples’ money to pay off A & B
All of it is based on leverage, rent-seeking and moral hazards.
As you correctly point out, the problem is the provisioning of the moral hazard (I can make a bad decision because the Feds will ensure that there is no downside risk for me) and allowing (and sometimes encouraging) the rent seeking.
Are they morally equivalent in your eyes?
When someone advocates for Govt to use other peoples’s money (i.e., tax money) to enhance their lives, regardless of which end of the strata in which they are located, they are morally equivalent. I don’t care a whit whether it is the poorest person in the country or the richest person in the world – coveting other peoples’ stuff is wrong.
It was obvious that the questioner has the opinion that the poor person signing for the mortgage was the victim and the only victim. The premise is that everyone else up the chain were in league to strictly profit from each proceeding level, but the biggest blame is the hated "1%" – the corporations.
The Left is always talking about "justice" – but always seem to take the little guy as the one being bullied regardless of the facts. The Right believes that true justice involves rapping the knuckles of anyone, be it large or small, who defies the Law.
