Poll: You come across a broken ATM...

[MeChaNiZ3D]

If it was clearly coming out of the previous person's bank account, maybe I wouldn't cut and run, but if not, I definitely would.

 

[norashepard]

I think I would only take it if I had moderate to high need, and if the bank that owned the ATM was a large chain and not a local Credit Union or something. If it was a CU, I wouldn't.

 

[Wilbot666]

I would like to say that I would not keep it but due to the state of my finances and debts I honestly don't know if I could just walk away.

 

[Luca72]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

I don't care that this money isn't coming out of someones account, it still belongs to someone, in this case the bank and its stockholders. people are people, no matter how rich and I am no thief so I will quickly gather it up, turn it in, and hope for a reward. Actually something like this somewhat (not really) happened to me, I find $30 outside my school, and turned it in. No reason to break my streak now.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

So in this case, the people the money belongs to are not people I take it? Why? Does being rich drain your humanity somehow?

 

[Silvanus]

Yep, I'd take it.


I need it. The bank/ insurance companies don't. They have all they need and far more. A couple of thousand would make a huge difference to me and my family, and only a negligible difference to the bank/ insurance company.

 

[Zeckt]

The banks steal our money with their monthly fee's, this would simply be taking it back. I stress the word TAKE.

 

[MagunBFP]

The whole point of a hypothetical is to determine a certain element of a decision. In this case, morality. When a person comes up with a hypothetical, they ARE that voice of god. They determine the situation. OP did this. He created a situation to find out what moral hesitation people may have, so he removed the risk of being caught.

The "accept or leave" position is stupid because not only to consumers ALWAYS have the right to hold businesses to a higher standard if their terms of business are fucked up, but in the case of banks, pretty much all of them are terrible. There is NO good option.

Granted, people fuck up and get loans they shouldn't have and whatnot. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm also not saying 2 wrongs make a right. It would still probably be objectively wrong. However, by your own admission, banks are really not very nice. This is why I would not feel bad. Yes it would be wrong. No I wouldn't have remorse or regret for doing it.
In terms of being greedy, yeah. I am. And money I haven't worked for? Who DOESN'T want money they didn't work for? Who wouldn't want to win the lottery? Other than whiny elitists I mean. But I never said I would do it just to stick it to the bank. I would do it because money buys me things that are awesome.

As for voting with your feet, again, people get screwed by banks no matter where they go. Now, when a bank does something really fucking stupid like Bank of America saying they would be charging for debit cards, I move. I did it until they canceled that plan and I would do it again. I still got screwed at my new bank, just slightly less. As I said, there is no good option.

"There's alot a multi-billion dollar company can do to get back that money and you wouldn't even notice."
My point exactly. The damage would be so tiny, I wouldn't notice and neither would anyone else.

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

The whole point of a hypothetical is to determine a certain element of a decision. In this case, morality. When a person comes up with a hypothetical, they ARE that voice of god. They determine the situation. OP did this. He created a situation to find out what moral hesitation people may have, so he removed the risk of being caught.

The "accept or leave" position is stupid because not only to consumers ALWAYS have the right to hold businesses to a higher standard if their terms of business are fucked up, but in the case of banks, pretty much all of them are terrible. There is NO good option.

Granted, people fuck up and get loans they shouldn't have and whatnot. I'm not disagreeing with that. I'm also not saying 2 wrongs make a right. It would still probably be objectively wrong. However, by your own admission, banks are really not very nice. This is why I would not feel bad. Yes it would be wrong. No I wouldn't have remorse or regret for doing it.
In terms of being greedy, yeah. I am. And money I haven't worked for? Who DOESN'T want money they didn't work for? Who wouldn't want to win the lottery? Other than whiny elitists I mean. But I never said I would do it just to stick it to the bank. I would do it because money buys me things that are awesome.

As for voting with your feet, again, people get screwed by banks no matter where they go. Now, when a bank does something really fucking stupid like Bank of America saying they would be charging for debit cards, I move. I did it until they canceled that plan and I would do it again. I still got screwed at my new bank, just slightly less. As I said, there is no good option.

"There's alot a multi-billion dollar company can do to get back that money and you wouldn't even notice."
My point exactly. The damage would be so tiny, I wouldn't notice and neither would anyone else.

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

Hey, thanks for directly calling me a bastard.

I'll be leaving now.

 

[Luca72]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

So in this case, the people the money belongs to are not people I take it? Why? Does being rich drain your humanity somehow?

This situation didn't imply anywhere that that money is "owned" by anyone. If the ATM was still logged into someones account and their money was being drained, I wouldn't take it. If it's just that the bills inside the ATM are suddenly not inside the ATM anymore, I would certainly take it because I'm not taking it from anyone.

Do you think that when you put money in the bank, it just sits there? And that removing some of those bills/credits detracts from the whole? Banks are insured, and they make their money by loaning it out several times over. The current standard is that for every dollar you put in the bank, the bank then loans out that dollar to nine different sources. This means that the amount of money in circulation dramatically exceeds the amount of money with real value that exists. I'm not saying it's right to steal from the rich - whether they earned it or scammed it, it's their property at this point. But individual bills have no value other than what the Federal Reserve essentially decides they have at the moment.

A simpler way to explain this - if everybody traded gold or some metal, and a gold trading machine (which would be AWESOME) started spewing out that gold, then it would be stealing to take it. Because you are actually decreasing the total value contained within the machine, and indirectly the amount owned by the bank. But bills have no actual value save for what is ascribed to them. Banks just recoup the losses and no one loses a penny, while the person who took the loose bills actually gains a profit.

Kinda reminds you why our economic system is a mess.

 

[Tiger Sora]

No. Unearned money is no money of mine. If I didn't suffer for it, I have no right to keep it.

Wether you suffered to earn it or not you suffer regardless because capitalism is heartless. Make it bleed for all it's worth Dark, ruthlessness gets you ahead.

 

[Lonewolfm16]

Hell yes! I wouldn't feel guilty about it at all. Dollars are just monetary notes with value artificially managed by debt. There's nothing "honorable" or "morally correct" about working hard for money versus simply getting lucky, as long as you aren't taking it from anyone else.

So in this case, the people the money belongs to are not people I take it? Why? Does being rich drain your humanity somehow?

This situation didn't imply anywhere that that money is "owned" by anyone. If the ATM was still logged into someones account and their money was being drained, I wouldn't take it. If it's just that the bills inside the ATM are suddenly not inside the ATM anymore, I would certainly take it because I'm not taking it from anyone.

Do you think that when you put money in the bank, it just sits there? And that removing some of those bills/credits detracts from the whole? Banks are insured, and they make their money by loaning it out several times over. The current standard is that for every dollar you put in the bank, the bank then loans out that dollar to nine different sources. This means that the amount of money in circulation dramatically exceeds the amount of money with real value that exists. I'm not saying it's right to steal from the rich - whether they earned it or scammed it, it's their property at this point. But individual bills have no value other than what the Federal Reserve essentially decides they have at the moment.

A simpler way to explain this - if everybody traded gold or some metal, and a gold trading machine (which would be AWESOME) started spewing out that gold, then it would be stealing to take it. Because you are actually decreasing the total value contained within the machine, and indirectly the amount owned by the bank. But bills have no actual value save for what is ascribed to them. Banks just recoup the losses and no one loses a penny, while the person who took the loose bills actually gains a profit.

Kinda reminds you why our economic system is a mess.

Yes, since the abolition of the gold standard our currency is basically just paper (well actually, I think it is made out of cotton, but that's besides the point.) but it is used to represent value. Taking money is still taking someone's property, or at least their ability to acquire property. Even if the bank is insured then the company insuring it loses profit. Of course, I could be wrong here, I will not feign knowledge I do not have. If banks are insured directly by the Federal Reserve then they could just print more money. Of course this would lead to inflation, but on this scale it would not be significant enough to be noticeable.

 

[MagunBFP]

I'll concede the voice of God meta-knowledge as you're right it is a hypothetical situation in that it assumes all surfaces are frictionless and perfectly round (ie the sitution is not actually consitant with the universe we live in)

The "accept or leave" position is holding business up to higher standards, either the business has acceptible standards and you accept it, or it doesn't and you complain and if no change is made you leave. If something doesn't meet your basic standards you don't sign up anyway and just expect that they change to meet your approval, they already have it. If you think all banks are that bad then leave them all, take your money and hide it in your matress... you don't get the security, flexibility, easy access or electronic money/access that banks provide you with, but you're also not getting charged such "outrageous" fees.

You'd imagine that if there was currently no "good" option that some enterprising individual would come up with something better... I mean its not like you could be the change you want to see...

Your point was that if the bank tried to recover the money lost by your theft then any increases in fees or interest would result in you and other customers changing banks... now you're saying your point is that a small increase wouldn't matter to you? Dafuq??? Be consistant in your arguements... If all charges are too high already then why aren't you up in arms about any further increases? Or are they only actually that bad when you have to justify theft?

EDIT: I forgot about your rambling about the lotto. When people win the lotto they're gambling, taking money that they earnt and trying to multiply it. When people steal they take money that someone else earnt and claim it as their own. See the difference people who gamble start with their own money and then through skill/luck end up with more money. Theives don't work for what they have and yet quite often feel entitled to it because "the other guy had it coming" or "I need it more then they do" or sometimes as in your case they're just plain greedy bastards who would probably steal from anyone if the OP told them they wouldn't get caught, because your mates money is as good as the banks.

Hey, thanks for directly calling me a bastard.

I'll be leaving now.

Yes, I will call someone who steals from anyone just because they wouldn't get caught a bastard, if that upsets you I suggest you look at why it does. That being said it changes none of my other arguements about why stealing even from a bank is wrong and that by just letting them charge their fees without doing or saying anything is actually giving them your tacit approval to continue.

 

[Darken12]

No. Unearned money is no money of mine. If I didn't suffer for it, I have no right to keep it.

Wether you suffered to earn it or not you suffer regardless because capitalism is heartless. Make it bleed for all it's worth Dark, ruthlessness gets you ahead.

Meh. I'm not a materialistic person, so whatever material benefits I might gain do not outweigh the ethical downsides.

 

[Luca72]

snip

That is actually what happens - the Federal Reserve just prints more money. The bank isn't harmed in any way, and I don't believe the clients are harmed either. It's actually kind of a scary process when you read into it - the last few years have seen a move to audit the Federal Reserve, and when they attempt to do so, they find that the Federal Reserve can't even account for much of the money it's lent out. I'm talking billions of dollars. If everyone were to cash in their dollars for something of equivalent value, the economy would literally collapse.

I'm not trying to argue that it's okay to take the money just because it would only hurt someone by a fraction of a percent of a dollar - I'm saying taking that money would literally have no effect on anyone.

 

[spartan231490]

I wouldn't risk it over chump-change, but if a few grand spit out, then yeah I'd probably keep it. Hide it somewhere for a few months in case there was an investigation then make some cash purchases. I might turn in a few hundred and say that was all that came out, depends on how paranoid I was feeling that day about getting caught.

 

[Olas]

Only if I knew FOR SURE it could never be traced back to me. It's not like I'm actually stealing from anyone, the bank will just get reimbursed the money anyhow.

 

[Jamieson 90]

Take money off a bank that got us into this fucking economic crisis in the first place, whilst their staff are getting paid six digit bonuses? And I won't get caught and it's not coming out of someone's account? SHIT YOU BET I'D FUCKING TAKE IT, I'd be shuffling the lot by the lorry load into the back of my car and coming back for more, if I had a car that is.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

It's not from anyone's personal account? Is the bank insured? The cameras are broken? The money's untraceable?

... Yeah, I'd take it.