Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

This isn't about a social norm. This isn't about non-payment of debts generally. This is about a very specific and narrow type of loan. The creditors here chose a risk. They could have insisted on security. They could have asked for collateral (ie the deeding over of a property right for a mortgage). They did not. They extended credit on nothing more than a promise and in full knowledge of bankruptcy laws. They also sold these debts onto other knowledgeable investors. The social norm at risk here is the idea that all debts should be treated equally, that we should force unsecured debts to be repaid as if they were secured. To equate credit card debt with mortgages and car loans, that's the really dangerous moral path.

We cannot force debtors to repay money in perpetuity. That's half way to indentured servitude, or worse. If someone has no hope of every paying off their debts, the logical thing to do is not bother trying. That is waste. And we long ago abandoned the idea of debtors prison. Puerto Rico cannot be jailed nor can it be forced to make payments forever as that would destroy their economy forever. The only reasonable thing is to eliminate the debts through the legal process.



> If someone has no hope...bother trying

Could it about setting an example?

Showing the lost case a hard time might scare others into good behavior.


Yes. By allowing investors to realize an actual loss we train future investors to not be so careless with thier money.

These are two-sided contracts negotiated between adults. It is not the role of government to always side with one type of party over all others. The risk of loss is a cornerstone of investment. So too is the concept that one may borrow without risking a lifetime of punishment should the venture fail.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: