I should be responsible for where I put my money, and to the extent of the support I brought to whatever entity committed something illegal I should be paying f

I should be responsible for where I put my money, and to the extent of the support I brought to whatever entity committed something illegal I should be paying for it. Isn't the market supposedly full of rational actors? Those people surely know where not to put their money then, and the others can pay for the mistake. Does that mean a lot less "safe" options are available to people wanting to put their money somewhere? Yes it does, and I would argue that's a benefit to everyone. The difference between the loan and the investment is that I took a loan because I couldn't afford paying for it cash, otherwise there's no reason I would augment my costs and risks (although you're going to tell me that there are ways to restructure financing to come out on top, which is exactly back to my initial point). I'm basically making a sub-optimal choice that, for a rational actor, implies coercion (i.e. I have to do it in order to get to my job, for example). Investment is money that I say I have and consciously decide to put into the system in order to make a profit, so the comparison falls flat. Why is it that we should be for example "eco-conscious" when it comes to our consumption (what you eat, what you buy, and so on) and not our investments? The real bullshit in this system is that we've added layers where we bet on the lack of rationality of the actors while designing systems that have that (broken) assumption baked into it. The problem is hard because we're being wilfully ignorant, not because it's magically beyond human beings.