It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Economics 101...
Besides which, take your original point:
...and apply that in reverse. They see that you're trying to screw them over, so there's nothing immoral (by your own logic) in them doing the same to you. When's it end?
He is standing up for an acceptable code of behaviour that should apply to all, and pointing out that a breach by 1 party does not allow or justify a breach by another.
"an eye for an eye" is demonstrably the worst system of behaviour in history.
https://soundcertified.com/speaker-ohms-calculator/
If you were actually miss-sold the PPI then reclaiming it is fine, but you were talking about "screwing banks over". Not the same.
https://soundcertified.com/speaker-ohms-calculator/
Starting to dawn on you?
Yes; those who were miss-sold PPI have the legal and moral right to reclaim it. That's not at question. But it's very different from what you actually said, which was:
Which I believe has been adequately shown to be untrue.
And - as you admitted - if a bank goes under, it's normal people who suffer.
You seem to know all of this but you can't put the pieces together?
It is for the Claimant to prove the case, not for the defendant to disprove it.
https://soundcertified.com/speaker-ohms-calculator/
It is like shoplifting in that the cost of what is taken is shared amongst everyone else.
So when you talk of screwing the banks, you are talking of screwing everyone else.
Is that easier to follow?
The rest of your post seemed to be an attempt to veer off course; I am still dealing with your assertion that it's morally OK to screw over a bank, because you're struggling with understanding why it is not morally OK.
I gotta be honest and say I'm tired of nearly a decade of "fuck the bankers" rhetoric. Obviously those who broke the law should be brought to justice, those who wrote crappy loophole-filled laws should be voted out. But no-one ever complains about those who took advantage of bargain-basement mortgages they couldn't really afford, blinkered to the fact that bubbles don't last forever...
Those running the banks (largely) did so within the law, and risk-taking was very similar across the board. That doesn't make it ok, but if they hadn't all been running the same practices they'd have gone out of business through being uncompetitive. The board has a duty to the shareholders not to let that happen.