The loophole is that you can't put a corporation in jail. Back in the 70's or 80's there was a tragic amusement park fire in New Jersey. One of the prosecutors or cops went looking for the person responsible for the fatal criminal negligence. I don't think anyone ever went to jail.

The only way to punish corporate misbehavior is by fines and lawsuits. Fines have not kept up with the profit to be made by breaking laws and Washington is leaning towards 'tort reform'.

If you or I were told we would never go to jail for anything we did and would instead be fined, how would that affect our behavior? And what if the maximum fine were $1000 for any offense? And if lawsuits were also capped at $1000?

I have never heard more bitching than when Sarbanes-Oxley went into effect, making CEO's and CFO's more accountable. The bonus-laden babies immediately began crying about the increase risk to them now that they would actually be held accountable for financial reports.

In fact, there is a lot of criticism that Sarbanes-Oxley is actually pretty weak in enforcement.

Its both Shaw - They are both to blame. Neither ignorance nor greed are acceptable excuses.

We are the victims. All. of. us. We are all paying whether we took out an ARM or not. Those that used them and those that were responsible borrowers - we all pay now. This is not political. It is about responsibility.

It's too bad we are not all as smart as some of us. :lol:

Corporations, hiring the top of the line liars, have a supreme advantage over a person with an IQ of 90 and a job at the supermarket who thinks they can finally send their kid to summer camp.

(pssst, that's why they call it 'predatory.' It's the powerful preying on the weak. We hope the weak learn and grow stronger. In this case, strength, survival, means avoiding the predator. They didn't see the herd being thinned until they were already in the thick of predatory territory. Are you completely without compassion for those who are not as savvy as you? The dummies and the corps are NOT equally responsible, by a long shot.)

Ok, so its those evil corps again that are all to blame. Personal &/or fiscal responsibility have little to do with it.

We'll have to agree to disagree here as we both bail out the bad choices made by other people. Personally, I'm getting used to it.

The weak should be required to learn this shit in school. It's important.

I agree. These circumstances should bring about education. The giant finger-wagging accomplishes nothing.

You're such a republican. ;)

For all the reasons I've laid out, if one were to read my posts as an actual conversation, yes...the evil corps are very responsible. We don't live in a world where everyone is savvy. The corps, they are the savviest. Wow, this seems like common knowledge to me.

If you, again, read my posts as a conversation you will see I have not completely taken personal responsibility of individuals away...I'm saying the game was far from fair. This is not opinion: this is our world. Perhaps we should expect everyone to be as smart as some of us. *shrugs* It's not going to happen.

If you find that world, please let me know. I've been forced to live in this one and it's the suxxors. For reasons I find odd and foreign, greed seems to be in charge. I find it disheartening that we excuse such monumental greed and outright thievery by telling the weak they were just stupid to fall for it. There there, big corps, you're just being yourselves. The rest can have cake.

Anyone that spends hundreds of thousands of dollars, without finding out the facts, is asking to get screwed. The information is available for free, and if you still can't understand it, hire an accountant or lawyer that can.

But yet your are the first to PUNISH anyone who types or posts as if someone is in conversation. Get use to eating cake. The nightmare has just begun.

No, mer not the first one to PUNISH anyone who posts or types as if someone is in conversation. Are you high again? Better get use to being wrong. You nightmare has just begun.

Why'd you come back, to remind us all what a dickhole you are? :lol:

I've mentioned this on the Cellar before, but when we got pre-approval for a loan so we could go house shopping for our current home, the bank tried to convince us that we would be fine borrowing about 1.5 times more than what we thought we could afford. They thought we should be buying more house. We had to be the ones telling the bank we didn't want to borrow that much. But even then, they pushed us. Less than a year after the deal closed, they sold our mortgage to another company. I doubt they ever intended to keep it.

It would have been so easy to just listen to the bank and take the huge mortgage and buy the mansion. But we'd be in trouble now.

A con game relies on the target being greedy, ignorant, and/or dishonest. So most people who are conned are, to some extent, to blame.

That doesn't excuse the con.

I agree HM, except to the reference of the con-game. WAY back there somewhere I mentioned that.

re: glatt - It is extremely rare for any salesperson to not try and upsell the customer. I see it daily. Is there a line between what is best for the client and what is best for the salesperson or their company? Yes, obviously. Most look at it long-term and sell appropriately. Others look for the quick buck and lose lots of customers. This is true in virtually all sales regardless of the product.

At least in our culture.

All very true, and pretty obvious when you stop to think about it, but when we went to the bank looking for a loan, it didn't occur to us that we were going to talk to a sales person. Having never taken out a loan before, I thought that it was all serious business where the bank is this stogy old place that wants to protect its money and we would need to beg for the money from old Mr. Potter.