5 ms·

> I was just unlucky I guess that it happened to me. People like this who have no sense of personal responsibility are an evil in the world. He spends million

> I was just unlucky I guess that it happened to me. People like this who have no sense of personal responsibility are an evil in the world. He spends millions of dollars of other people's money, declares bankruptcy (presumably), and when his actions are deemed dishonest and immoral, though not technically illegal, he acts like that's just name-calling and gets right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Presidents-elect? I expected better of HN commenters. Remember when we had a spirited discussion about people defaulting on their student loans and blaming society for making them take huge loans they can't pay back? This situation lacks any of the nuance of that one.

yequalsx 10y ago
A loan is a two party relationship and both parties have responsibilities. Also there are known consequences to default. Defaulting on a loan has nothin to do with morality as far as I'm concerned. If you are fine with the consequences of default then do so. It's not immoral as everyone knows the risk/consequences.
- alogray 10y ago
  Sure -- but typically the result of defaulting on a loan is not debtor's prison unless you happen to still be living in 1820.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    Yes. I was commenting to what the parent commenter wrote. He/she seems to think strategic defaults are immoral.
- dgreensp 10y ago
  I don't think whether or not everyone knows the consequences is relevant. You can work out the purely legal or administrative downsides (to you) of lots of things.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    It's relevant in the case of defaulting on a loan. Both parties in theory know the risks/consequences and, in usual circumstances, willingingly agreed to the legal framework of the loan.
- raesene6 10y ago
  It's a two party situation if both parties are aware of it. I didn't read any implication in the article that the bank knew about this, it was a mistake either human or software that led to him having the credit line. so only one party was aware of it, the customer, therefore their responsibility for the borrowing.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    Yes. I was only commenting not the parent commentators apparent belief that strategic defaults are immoral.
- hsod 10y ago
  So if your friend tells you he's hard up for rent and you loan him 1000 dollars he can decide not to pay you back and it "has nothin to do with morality"? After all, you were aware of the risk that he wouldn't pay you back.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    One should never lend money to friends. Make it a gift. Never have an expectation of getting it back. One lending money the person should understand this but not everyone does. In the situation a friends it would be immoral to not try to pay it back. In the situation of the lender being an expert who understand the pricing of loans and understands the risks then it isn't a moral issue.
    - hsod 10y ago
      What if am an expert who understands the pricing of loans and understands the risks, but I make a personal loan to a friend? Is it immoral to not try and pay it back then? Isn't repaying your debts (or attempting to) morality 101 stuff? You made an agreement and received a benefit from your counterparty. Just because someone thought you might default doesn't relieve you of your obligations. I lock my doors because I think someone might break in, that doesn't mean I've "priced in" my TV being stolen so it's OK to take it.
      - yequalsx 10y ago
        The comparison to a locked house is not apt. It would be apt if I made an agreement with the thief that specified what happens if I willingly decide to leave the door unlocked. When there is a contract it becomes civil legal matter and morality does not come into play.
mikeash 10y ago
Seriously, what an asshole. He "was just unlucky"? No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. The bank was clearly in the wrong as well. They shouldn't have extended this credit, and once they did they shouldn't have tried to prosecute him when he didn't break the law. But acting like the negative consequences of it were bad luck makes this fellow a profound dickhead. I hope he learns better before he completes his law degree and starts representing people.
- TAForObvReasons 10y ago
  > No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. There's another way to look at it: The "bad judgment" is only bad if you view the standard as "tell[ing] the bank they messed up". If the standard is to blow all the money on strippers and cocaine, then the bad luck in this situation was that he was presented with the anomaly in the first place.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, you're right, but why would I view the standard that way?
    - restalis 10y ago
      "why would I view the standard that way?" That is closer to the core human nature for a lot of people. Many people want to live and enjoy life (more than enjoying the good perks of being honest). Playing by the rules is just a mean to an end not a purpose in itself.
      - 10y ago
ad-hominem 10y ago
No idea why you're being downvoted, I guess because people feel like fuck the banks, he got a good one over on them! I hate the financial industry too, but this guy knew 100% what he was doing was wrong morally, and didn't plan on paying that money back. His hardships from his actions are 100% his fault, even though I agree that he is not technically guilty of a crime. I am glad he isn't in jail, but he put himself there.
tomp 10y ago
Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, declare the debts in default (presumably), and when their actions are deemed imprudent and unprofitable, though not technically illegal, they acts like that's just name-calling and get right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Wall Street bank?
- marviel 10y ago
  Like with most polarized issues, the truth is that both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two.
  - restalis 10y ago
    "both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two" Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.
- raesene6 10y ago
  Except that's not what appears to have happened here. I didn't see any suggestion in the article that the bank knowingly lent out the money, most likely a human error or bug in one of their systems caused his account to have this line of credit applied to it. If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.
- mempko 10y ago
  > They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money Banks don't lend other people's money. They create money when they lend. Read this from the Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
rconti 10y ago
You know, I'm not saying he's a great guy, but that quoted comment seems very out of line from the rest of the article. "I was just unlucky" seems taken out of context somehow. For example, he said he wouldn't have done it again because of how it destroyed his life and wasn't worth it. So I suspect the "luck" was about some narrow specific component and not the fact that he got arrested. Obviously he knows why he got arrested.
- restalis 10y ago
  He might got an idea after the fact, but that arrest should have never happened. Like someone around here mentioned, the bank wanting the money back is a civil matter and the bank should have tried to approach him amiably. Everything about it could have gone without the arrest and jail time.
concernedmale 10y ago
"Remind you of any Presidents-elect?" - you mean he knowingly committed fraud and then said it wasn't fraud? More reminds me of the loser of the election. ;)
nulagrithom 10y ago
> Remind you of any Presidents-elect? Is that really necessary? I'm getting a little sick of Trump replacing Hitler in Godwin's law. We had a detox week for a reason. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)
- snowpanda 10y ago
  Some people can't help themselves.
mempko 10y ago
> He spends millions of dollars of other people's money This is simply not true. The bank created credit money out of thin air. They didn't have to take money from anywhere to give it to him. On their books, his loan looked like an asset. This is a common misunderstanding of how banks work. He didn't steal anyone else's money, he got new money. Read this introduction of how money and banking work from the Bank of England http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...
chasing 10y ago
> Remind you of any Presidents-elect? I kind of agree with you, but that's unnecessary and unfair. There's no evidence the kid's racist, sexually assaulted women, or worked with the Russians to undermine American democracy.

yequalsx 10y ago

A loan is a two party relationship and both parties have responsibilities. Also there are known consequences to default. Defaulting on a loan has nothin to do with morality as far as I'm concerned. If you are fine with the consequences of default then do so. It's not immoral as everyone knows the risk/consequences.

alogray 10y ago
Sure -- but typically the result of defaulting on a loan is not debtor's prison unless you happen to still be living in 1820.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  Yes. I was commenting to what the parent commenter wrote. He/she seems to think strategic defaults are immoral.
dgreensp 10y ago
I don't think whether or not everyone knows the consequences is relevant. You can work out the purely legal or administrative downsides (to you) of lots of things.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  It's relevant in the case of defaulting on a loan. Both parties in theory know the risks/consequences and, in usual circumstances, willingingly agreed to the legal framework of the loan.
raesene6 10y ago
It's a two party situation if both parties are aware of it. I didn't read any implication in the article that the bank knew about this, it was a mistake either human or software that led to him having the credit line. so only one party was aware of it, the customer, therefore their responsibility for the borrowing.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  Yes. I was only commenting not the parent commentators apparent belief that strategic defaults are immoral.
hsod 10y ago
So if your friend tells you he's hard up for rent and you loan him 1000 dollars he can decide not to pay you back and it "has nothin to do with morality"? After all, you were aware of the risk that he wouldn't pay you back.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  One should never lend money to friends. Make it a gift. Never have an expectation of getting it back. One lending money the person should understand this but not everyone does. In the situation a friends it would be immoral to not try to pay it back. In the situation of the lender being an expert who understand the pricing of loans and understands the risks then it isn't a moral issue.
  - hsod 10y ago
    What if am an expert who understands the pricing of loans and understands the risks, but I make a personal loan to a friend? Is it immoral to not try and pay it back then? Isn't repaying your debts (or attempting to) morality 101 stuff? You made an agreement and received a benefit from your counterparty. Just because someone thought you might default doesn't relieve you of your obligations. I lock my doors because I think someone might break in, that doesn't mean I've "priced in" my TV being stolen so it's OK to take it.
    - yequalsx 10y ago
      The comparison to a locked house is not apt. It would be apt if I made an agreement with the thief that specified what happens if I willingly decide to leave the door unlocked. When there is a contract it becomes civil legal matter and morality does not come into play.

mikeash 10y ago

Seriously, what an asshole. He "was just unlucky"? No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. The bank was clearly in the wrong as well. They shouldn't have extended this credit, and once they did they shouldn't have tried to prosecute him when he didn't break the law. But acting like the negative consequences of it were bad luck makes this fellow a profound dickhead. I hope he learns better before he completes his law degree and starts representing people.

TAForObvReasons 10y ago
> No, there was not a single piece of bad luck for him in this whole affair. Something strange happened to him, but it was easy to handle without screwing anything up: just tell the bank they messed up, or even just ignore it. Deciding to start spending the money like crazy was not bad luck, it was bad judgment. There's another way to look at it: The "bad judgment" is only bad if you view the standard as "tell[ing] the bank they messed up". If the standard is to blow all the money on strippers and cocaine, then the bad luck in this situation was that he was presented with the anomaly in the first place.
- mikeash 10y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, you're right, but why would I view the standard that way?
  - restalis 10y ago
    "why would I view the standard that way?" That is closer to the core human nature for a lot of people. Many people want to live and enjoy life (more than enjoying the good perks of being honest). Playing by the rules is just a mean to an end not a purpose in itself.
    - 10y ago

ad-hominem 10y ago

No idea why you're being downvoted, I guess because people feel like fuck the banks, he got a good one over on them! I hate the financial industry too, but this guy knew 100% what he was doing was wrong morally, and didn't plan on paying that money back. His hardships from his actions are 100% his fault, even though I agree that he is not technically guilty of a crime. I am glad he isn't in jail, but he put himself there.

tomp 10y ago

Institutions like this that have no sense of financial responsibility are an evil in the world. They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money, declare the debts in default (presumably), and when their actions are deemed imprudent and unprofitable, though not technically illegal, they acts like that's just name-calling and get right back up on his high horse. Remind you of any Wall Street bank?

marviel 10y ago
Like with most polarized issues, the truth is that both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two.
- restalis 10y ago
  "both parties were in the wrong in different ways, and the blame, and thus legal action, should lay distributed between the two" Between these two only the bank, as institution or licensed financial entity, has an obligation to guard the flow of public money. The bank should not hand anyone the responsibility of overdraft limit management. The individual can be assumed incompetent and just be absolved of any responsibility solely based on that.
raesene6 10y ago
Except that's not what appears to have happened here. I didn't see any suggestion in the article that the bank knowingly lent out the money, most likely a human error or bug in one of their systems caused his account to have this line of credit applied to it. If they had pushed him to take a reckless loan, I'd agree with you that they shared liability here, but this was (from what I've read) just him taking advantage of a mistake by the bank.
mempko 10y ago
> They lend out millions of dollars of other people's money Banks don't lend other people's money. They create money when they lend. Read this from the Bank of England. http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

rconti 10y ago

You know, I'm not saying he's a great guy, but that quoted comment seems very out of line from the rest of the article. "I was just unlucky" seems taken out of context somehow. For example, he said he wouldn't have done it again because of how it destroyed his life and wasn't worth it. So I suspect the "luck" was about some narrow specific component and not the fact that he got arrested. Obviously he knows why he got arrested.

restalis 10y ago
He might got an idea after the fact, but that arrest should have never happened. Like someone around here mentioned, the bank wanting the money back is a civil matter and the bank should have tried to approach him amiably. Everything about it could have gone without the arrest and jail time.

concernedmale 10y ago

"Remind you of any Presidents-elect?" - you mean he knowingly committed fraud and then said it wasn't fraud? More reminds me of the loser of the election. ;)

nulagrithom 10y ago

> Remind you of any Presidents-elect? Is that really necessary? I'm getting a little sick of Trump replacing Hitler in Godwin's law. We had a detox week for a reason. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)

snowpanda 10y ago
Some people can't help themselves.

mempko 10y ago

> He spends millions of dollars of other people's money This is simply not true. The bank created credit money out of thin air. They didn't have to take money from anywhere to give it to him. On their books, his loan looked like an asset. This is a common misunderstanding of how banks work. He didn't steal anyone else's money, he got new money. Read this introduction of how money and banking work from the Bank of England http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarte...

chasing 10y ago

> Remind you of any Presidents-elect? I kind of agree with you, but that's unnecessary and unfair. There's no evidence the kid's racist, sexually assaulted women, or worked with the Russians to undermine American democracy.