3 ms·

You're seeing "the bank" as a faceless entity, when in fact "the bank" (not sure about this particular bank, but in general) is owned by shareholders, some of w

You're seeing "the bank" as a faceless entity, when in fact "the bank" (not sure about this particular bank, but in general) is owned by shareholders, some of whom are almost certainly disabled old ladies whose dead husband put their retirement savings in bank stocks because those were considered to be a safe investment. If enough people steal from "the bank" under your theory, the old blind lady winds up eating cat food and not being able to pay her rent because the bank is no longer profitable. That doesn't sound quite as "defensible", now, does it? Note that things like banks and insurance companies (another favorite whipping boy) do tend to have their stocks owned by things like retirement funds, precisely because they are considered low-risk investments with a safe (albeit small) yield.

rowanG077 7y ago
I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. My point about the comparison with two people should clue you in on that. Your theory about if enough people steal from "the bank" doesn't hold any water since if that happens it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. That's not even to say the vast options banks have to detect stealing if it would become such a huge problem. A person on welfare has little option. It's simple to me. a single person stealing from a bank incurs a lot less suffering then a single person stealing from a welfare recipient. The damage done is simply not even comparable.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Turing_Machine 7y ago
  > I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. Yes, you absolutely are. > it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened And you're also apparently seeing "the government" as a faceless entity with an unlimited amount of cash. When the government "swoops in", it's at the expense of every single taxpayer. I'm boggled that people are incapable of understanding this, or are in such denial about it that they feel the need to mod me down rather than debating the point.

rowanG077 7y ago

I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. My point about the comparison with two people should clue you in on that. Your theory about if enough people steal from "the bank" doesn't hold any water since if that happens it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened in the 2008 financial crisis. That's not even to say the vast options banks have to detect stealing if it would become such a huge problem. A person on welfare has little option. It's simple to me. a single person stealing from a bank incurs a lot less suffering then a single person stealing from a welfare recipient. The damage done is simply not even comparable.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Turing_Machine 7y ago
> I'm not seeing the bank as a faceless entity. Yes, you absolutely are. > it's proven that the government will swoop in and save the bank as happened And you're also apparently seeing "the government" as a faceless entity with an unlimited amount of cash. When the government "swoops in", it's at the expense of every single taxpayer. I'm boggled that people are incapable of understanding this, or are in such denial about it that they feel the need to mod me down rather than debating the point.