[thematt]

He's not ignoring it at all, he's absolutely right. It's still the fault of those who write and sign the laws.

Lobbying is legal and means others get their input to the legislators but ultimately the buck still stops with Congress and the President.

If you have a problem with lobbying, again...that is still the fault of the politicians, not those doing the lobbying. They're acting within the bounds of the law.

[raganwald]

If the politicians are responsible, that doesn’t mean Wall Street isn’t also responsible. Blame is a non-zero-sum concept. If I lobby for the right to dump toxic waste in a river, do we really say “lobbying is legal, blame the politicians for the toxic waste?” No, we ought to blame me for dumping toxic waste whether it’s legal or not, and blame me again for making it legal by lobbying.

Summary: Yes, it’s great to find fault with the political system, but that doesn’t absolve Wall Street or anybody else of the obligation to act ethically. In fact, the definition of ethics is pretty much Doing the right thing when not compelled to do so by consequences, legal or otherwise.

[danilocampos]

> They're acting within the bounds of the law.

This strikes me as a non-sequitur.

There's a lot of bad stuff you can do without actually committing a crime. Especially if you have enough money to influence the law.

I like that the final defense of the financial sector's misdeeds is to stammer "Well, it's not strictly illegal!"

[hugh3]

This strikes me as a non-sequitur. There's a lot of bad stuff you can do without actually committing a crime. Especially if you have enough money to influence the law.

And it's the Government's job to make sure that "bad stuff" (ie stuff that actively and deliberately hurts people, not just standard non-optimal stuff) is illegal.

If a legal moneymaking niche exists, somebody will fill it. Even if it's immoral, because... hey, people are extremely good at convincing themselves that anything is moral if it happens to be in their own interests. The government's job is to prevent any harmful yet legal niches from arising, and the job of the people is to make sure that pressure is put on the government to eradicate said niches... even when they'd much rather take campaign contributions from the people in 'em.

This comment is free of examples, because I don't feel like discussing any specific cases.

[thematt]

I agree, but I was referring to lobbying in particular.

The phrase "if you have enough money to influence the law" indicates not that the corporations did something illegal/unethical (why wouldn't they spend money to get their input heard?), but rather indicates corrupt politicians who would make decisions and laws based on who spent the most money.

[danilocampos]

The United States was constructed in the shadow of centuries kings and tyrants. The US government was built to be feeble, and thus accountable to its people.

What the founders could not have predicted was that one day, that feebleness could allow the country to be hijacked by powers that make kings look cute by comparison.

Our system isn't built to withstand the manipulation of corporate interests. There's not a lot I can do about that from where I'm sitting. But the fact that the store was left unlocked by a shady employee doesn't exonerate the thieves who made off with its contents.

There's often no distinction between those who spend money and those who make the decisions. The revolving door between Washington and big financial interests is absurd. Healthcare and finance are both in a state of regulatory capture that would be comical were it not so tragic.