Hacker News Reader

Comment by dgreensp | Hacker News Reader

> 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.

View on HN

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?

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.

"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.

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.

> 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/quarte...

> 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/quarte...

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.

Sure -- but typically the result of defaulting on a loan is not debtor's prison unless you happen to still be living in 1820.

Yes. I was commenting to what the parent commenter wrote. He/she seems to think strategic defaults are immoral.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. I was only commenting not the parent commentators apparent belief that strategic defaults are immoral.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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)

Some people can't help themselves.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

I'm not sure what your point is. I mean, you're right, but why would I view the standard that way?

"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.

So what? It's human nature to bash in the head of a stranger so you can take their food, but I wouldn't accept someone calling it "unlucky" that they happened across a defenseless stranger all alone with some good food.

It's definitely unlucky for the stranger with the good food!

> 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.

You're equating the standards as either "telling the back they messed up" or "blow the money on strippers and cocaine", but then suggesting the bad luck is only true when one of those standards happen...

This logic doesn't even check out. And even if it did, both would assume your actions are only predicated on factors outside of your control, which I think OP is referring to isn't the case.

You are presented with a beneficial situation. You can make decisions that have various potential consequences. These are easily guessed in rudimentary detail.

"Bad luck" only enters the equation if you have no choice of what to do.

If your position is of the philosophy that there is no free will, then your argument would be better held by just stating that, instead of making up scenarios that aren't compatible.

I wonder what would be your take on the whole case if he used the funds to build successful company that paid all the funds back, and paid for strippers and cocaine.

That would be a lot better. I still wouldn't approve of it, but at least he'd be doing something useful with it.

What really gets me is not just taking the money, but then talking about the whole affair as if it was something done to him, rather than something he did.

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com