zlacker

>>uptown+(OP)
So let's get this straight for the justice system:

1. misleading the American public into going to a series of costly wars through lies about WMDs -> not punishable

2. Weakening Glass-Stegal and encouraging questionable and irresponsible risk-taking at major banking institutions -> not punishable

3. Fraudulent evaluation of risk-ratings by trusted agencies for the sake of profit leading to worst financial disaster since great depression -> not punishable, actually, rewarded with billions in bail-out by tax payers

4. setting up and running a website to host underground drug trade with bitcoins -> punishable by life-sentence

Not that what Ulbricht did was right or that he shouldn't be punished... but his biggest problem was that his business didn't generate enough profit at the expense of the public. Justice might be blind, but even she can still smell money.

>>gr8b8m+C4
Also let's not forget:

5. Apples are red

6. Oranges are orange

You're comparing facts: "Ulbricht ran The Silk Road," with your own conjecture: "Banks encouraged 'questionable' risk taking." You're making a lot of extraordinary claims that are very very difficult to prove with no evidence to back them up.

And you're using this conjecture as evidence of... something? You don't really make a point. You just repeat popular internet tropes.

>>beniha+Sa
There's plenty of evidence that banks intentionally mislead consumers through predatory lending schemes, signing them for (and misrepresenting the terms of) loans that they knew that the borrower would not be able to pay back. They did so under the explicit premise that the bad mortgages would be lumped in with other investment products and then sold off.

A lot of people were defrauded. The economy is still trying to recover. I don't think people who lost homes or are struggling to find work and make ends meet would consider any of this to be an internet trope.