[bumby]

They are "just tools" in the context of the way that term was used in the comment I was responding to.

I'm not sure you were following the point. It was about the culpability of the manufacturer/creator. In your example, it would mean Dell should shoulder some responsibility for somebody misusing their product. The fact is some people think use/trading of certain financial tools should be illegal and that those who caused problems with them should be held responsible. I'm not sure where that line is for financial tools but we already have guardrails in other areas of society to address similar concerns.

[la_barba]

Well, you were the one who said it was a cop-out. Are you not of that opinion any more?

IMO, the culpability of the manufacturer should be zero for general purpose tools. For things like guns/weapons, which were invented solely for killing living things, you can make an argument for regulation...

>The fact is some people think use/trading of certain financial tools should be illegal and that those who caused problems with them should be held responsible.

I don't think its right to base any argument simply on what "some people" think. Why not instead, list the pros and cons of the tool, and what you would change?

[bumby]

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I think you are still missing the point. When I was alluding to them being "just instruments" analogous to the way drugs or guns could be considered "just instruments", it was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry if that didn't come across clearly in text. So yes, my comment is still congruent with thinking of financial derivatives as "just instruments" is a cop-out.

FWIW on your second point, "some" of those people are members of Congress who are meant to represent constituents and draft laws. What you're advocating in listing the pros/cons is a risk based approach, which is the way most decisions, including these, should be framed.

[la_barba]

Fair enough :)