[DannyBee]

If black hats are not doing it for social good, they deserve to be vilified as well. Here, the NPE's are only doing it for massive monetary gain to the detriment of innocents.

If the banks found a loophole in mortgage regulations that allowed them to take the houses of people who were paying, should we admire them for finding a bug, or vilify them for taking people's houses?

You seem (in this post and another) to think we should be doing the former. I believe it is the latter, or at worst, both.

The idea that we should admire NPE's in some fashion because they are doing Congress's job (which they aren't, btw), rather than vilify them, is, well, crazy.

[law]

> If the banks found a loophole in mortgage regulations that allowed them to take the houses of people who were paying, should we admire them for finding a bug, or vilify them for taking people's houses?

You're ignoring the probability that banks would find such a a loophole. The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was an indirect example, but allocating the majority of blame to the banks is not appropriate. They acted rationally assuming perfect information (an assumption that's usually necessary in the economic models they used in evaluating creditworthiness), so if anything, they deserve criticism for failing to appreciate the significance of, and potential for, imperfect information. But that issue isn't really relevant here.

It might be a fundamental difference in our opinions, but I'm inclined to believe that the purpose of the law is to avoid situations requiring "social justice." These companies are playing by the rules, but it's the rules that are flawed. So I prefer to spend my time focused on the root cause of our outrage.

[javajosh]

There were plenty of people who chose not to own slaves even when slavery was legal in this country. Those who chose to own slaves, in my view, were acting legally but contemptibly. Your view seems to be that even those who believed slave-owning was wrong had no right to show contempt to those who followed the law.

[mercurial]

> You're ignoring the probability that banks would find such a a loophole. The U.S. subprime mortgage crisis was an indirect example, but allocating the majority of blame to the banks is not appropriate.

You're ignoring the fact that banks lobbied to have Glass-Steagall repealed in the first place :) In computer term, you could say they used privilege escalation to create this loophole. And considering the amount of cash NPEs make, they're probably doing whatever they can to ensure the statu quo remains.

Now, you may very well argue that they are acting rationally, and they certainly are. But they do not exist in a vacuum. They are also acting outside of a moral framework, and harming the interests of the majority. There is little difference between the mob asking asking a small business for protection money, or a patent troll getting a settlement out of a small business for an overly broad patent: in both cases, it's extortion. Why shouldn't they be vilified, just like SCO was vilified back when it had the same business model? These people add nothing of value to the world, they actually try to subtract value.

You can argue there is a problem with Congress if it allows lobbies to write laws. But it would be exactly like blaming an official for accepting an unsolicited bribe, but not the person doing the bribing (which in real life would receive the harshest punishment).

[quinnchr]

The "rules" are decided by the status qou, those who are already have power and intend to maintain it. The purpose of the law is to enforce the interests of the dominant political power. Judging the banks by the laws they lobbied to enact is farcical. The flawed rules are a part of the root cause, we allow those who have the most power to decide the law of the land, and we absolutely should judge them on a moral and ethical basis as opposed to the legal basis they control.

[sitkack]

    |  They acted rationally assuming perfect information.

patently false.