> They are a part of an economic and social system that makes things in such way
If you're trying to imply such crimes are hard to prosecute because The Powers That Be™ deliberately made it that, how does that explain the difficulty in prosecuting long firm fraud (and other white collar crimes)? You can argue that price fixing being hard to prosecute helps "corporate America" or whatever, but basically everyone is united against long firm fraud. Yet, it's hard to prosecute. Why is that?
The thing to look for would be the way that making long firm fraud easy to prosecute would lead to companies being accountable for things they don’t want to be accountable for.
Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to long firm fraud.
>I’m not arguing about debtors prisons? I’m not sure why you’ve focused on it
Because that's seemingly what you were asking about? If not clarify what you originally meant rather than beating around the bush then being surprised when people aren't focusing on the things you want.
>>>Like what? Moreover, what does this hold for public policy? Should we bring back debtor's prisons? That would be the obvious solution to long firm fraud.
>>I’m not an expert, but the way you wrote your comment seemed to be discounting this possibility for no discernible reason
>Debtor's prisons were widely considered to be cruel, which is why they were abolished basically everywhere in the developed world.
At least a portion of this question from personal opinion goes towards how "united" the general "everyone" is against fraud.
The idea is similar to Tragedy of the Commons issues. The collective community, or aggregate view is "fraud bad", yet the individual, provided opportunity and anonymity, acts in the their own self interest, especially where punishment is viewed as difficult or low plausibility.
Similar issues occur with the general concept of honesty, and views of social honesty. Surveyed, personal belief is that most respondents would state that other humans should reply honestly, with accurate information. However, many, in personal action and isolated opportunities are quite willing to embellish, neglect to correct a mistake, or outright lie.
Neglecting to correct a mistake is one of the most difficult, and shows up quite frequently in markets. With the markets often congratulating recipients for taking advantage of fools who priced something "wrong." Lots of various rationalizations that then get used. "Its their own fault", "they won't notice the difference", "I'm just more clever", "we deserve it because of our status", ect... Usually, seems more frequent the further away, the less personal, and the more abstract the lie or theft. Much like the article title. Office Space did this joke a long time ago.
Peter: Ah no, you don't understand. It's very complicated. It's, uh, it's aggregate, so I'm talking about fractions of a penny here. And over time they add up to a lot.
Joanna: Oh okay. So you're gonna be making a lot of money, right?
Peter: Yeah.
Joanna: Right. It's not yours?
Peter: Well it becomes ours.
Joanna: How is that not stealing?
Mileage may vary on the comparison, yet I found similarities with a lot of entertainment media, that eventually made me pull away. Personal belief is most respondents are opposed to their own suffering and torture, yet quite happy to read / watch media that often amounts to systematic character torture. Laugh happily eating popcorn while miserable people on screen suffer, yet would not want to be transposed into the same situations. It's ok, its abstract, and not especially personal. It's just entertainment.
If you're trying to imply such crimes are hard to prosecute because The Powers That Be™ deliberately made it that, how does that explain the difficulty in prosecuting long firm fraud (and other white collar crimes)? You can argue that price fixing being hard to prosecute helps "corporate America" or whatever, but basically everyone is united against long firm fraud. Yet, it's hard to prosecute. Why is that?