Out of curiosity, what is the moral difference, or where does one draw the line on morals between these two scenarios:
1) A highly geared individual, reaps the benefits of higher spending power/profit loses a job and has funding problems. His lender shows no mercy and drives him into bankruptcy and destroys his reputation and career.
2) A highly geared institution, reaps the benefits of higher spending power/profit until
it succumbs to funding problems. Traders/shareholders show no mercy and drive the
firm into bankruptcy destroying reputations and careers.
Is this a touch of Karma, or at least pot calling kettle black? By no means am I supporting rogue behaviour in markets but regardless of earning ability/health both scenarios are struggling to meet repayments due to overgearing and a belief that good times will never end.
1) A highly geared individual, reaps the benefits of higher spending power/profit loses a job and has funding problems. His lender shows no mercy and drives him into bankruptcy and destroys his reputation and career.
2) A highly geared institution, reaps the benefits of higher spending power/profit until
it succumbs to funding problems. Traders/shareholders show no mercy and drive the
firm into bankruptcy destroying reputations and careers.
Is this a touch of Karma, or at least pot calling kettle black? By no means am I supporting rogue behaviour in markets but regardless of earning ability/health both scenarios are struggling to meet repayments due to overgearing and a belief that good times will never end.
