3 ms·

While I agree it seems absolutely abusive to throw people in jail without explanation over a $250 credit card debt, the principle of being jailed over debt is n

While I agree it seems absolutely abusive to throw people in jail without explanation over a $250 credit card debt, the principle of being jailed over debt is not always shocking to me. It would have been very appropriate for the banking executives who committed their bank's customers assets to credit market swap agreements worth billions while knowing perfectly well that they weren't able to honor the bill if it ever came due like it did last year! Isn't that also jailing over debt? Wasn't that due in this case?

kls 16y ago
Yes but they are protected by limited liability. Legal (criminal) enforcement of debt is a slippery slope and one that I do not support. If a corporation defaults on debt they are protected under limited liability. In this case an individual is not. It not only gives corporations and unfair advantage, but it is very prone to abuse of the system. As evident in the article publicly funded resources are being used to secure private funds. I don't want my money being used to pay Vinny "the cop" enforcer to shake people down. The fact of the matter is don't give credit to people who have no credit worthiness. The knew the risk, jacked up the cost of credit for those individuals based on it and now they want to enforce payment from an individual that they knew where high risk in the first place. If they can extort payment, then they should have given then the cheapest credit available given that they are guaranteed to recoup their money. This stinks of predatory practices and the whole lot of them should be strung up in the street. Credit ratings exist for a reason, and if these companies willfully ignore those ratings then F* them. OK now I am worked up.
- mistermann 16y ago
  Credit ratings are a joke in modern times...they no longer serve the purpose for which they were created, and the approval formulas are vastly different.
WiseWeasel 16y ago
That's ridiculous. How do you recover trillions of dollars lost in the credit default swap market from a CEO's assets? It's up to creditors to determine whether someone can be trusted to pay them back, and to give credit to them accordingly. An individual should always be able to declare bankruptcy, with no recourse for the creditor but to avoid loaning them money in the future. It's completely unacceptable that credit should flow like water to anyone who will soak it up, and then use the court system to force them to pay it back with 300% interest and fees added on. This simply reeks of corruption.
- danielnicollet 16y ago
  I never said the idea was to use the CEO's assets to recover the losses of that kind of credit. I see prison more as punitive measure in that case. However, I don't see (as kls says very accurately below) why the banks' limited corporate liability should protect them when they do allow such immoral gambling as credit default swap to take place with the hard earned assets of millions of their customers. It my be just negligent but you and I are going to pay for it for long long time...
  - mistermann 16y ago
    or, you could have said "whoosh".

kls 16y ago

Yes but they are protected by limited liability. Legal (criminal) enforcement of debt is a slippery slope and one that I do not support. If a corporation defaults on debt they are protected under limited liability. In this case an individual is not. It not only gives corporations and unfair advantage, but it is very prone to abuse of the system. As evident in the article publicly funded resources are being used to secure private funds. I don't want my money being used to pay Vinny "the cop" enforcer to shake people down. The fact of the matter is don't give credit to people who have no credit worthiness. The knew the risk, jacked up the cost of credit for those individuals based on it and now they want to enforce payment from an individual that they knew where high risk in the first place. If they can extort payment, then they should have given then the cheapest credit available given that they are guaranteed to recoup their money. This stinks of predatory practices and the whole lot of them should be strung up in the street. Credit ratings exist for a reason, and if these companies willfully ignore those ratings then F* them. OK now I am worked up.

mistermann 16y ago
Credit ratings are a joke in modern times...they no longer serve the purpose for which they were created, and the approval formulas are vastly different.

WiseWeasel 16y ago

That's ridiculous. How do you recover trillions of dollars lost in the credit default swap market from a CEO's assets? It's up to creditors to determine whether someone can be trusted to pay them back, and to give credit to them accordingly. An individual should always be able to declare bankruptcy, with no recourse for the creditor but to avoid loaning them money in the future. It's completely unacceptable that credit should flow like water to anyone who will soak it up, and then use the court system to force them to pay it back with 300% interest and fees added on. This simply reeks of corruption.

danielnicollet 16y ago
I never said the idea was to use the CEO's assets to recover the losses of that kind of credit. I see prison more as punitive measure in that case. However, I don't see (as kls says very accurately below) why the banks' limited corporate liability should protect them when they do allow such immoral gambling as credit default swap to take place with the hard earned assets of millions of their customers. It my be just negligent but you and I are going to pay for it for long long time...
- mistermann 16y ago
  or, you could have said "whoosh".