tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post3468268486388255287..comments2024-03-29T10:51:27.752+13:00Comments on Not PC: Risk, Moral Hazard, and the Moochers of South Canterbury FinancePeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-27180985728788698202014-03-12T19:02:36.081+13:002014-03-12T19:02:36.081+13:00Both responsible, the wideboys however stood to pr...Both responsible, the wideboys however stood to profit from their gambling and broke their word to repay so are I think more responsible. This is a subjective "value judgement" though, all one can say for certain is it takes two to tango.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-83826886463833845872014-03-12T12:00:07.042+13:002014-03-12T12:00:07.042+13:00Who is really at fault? I think it is the dodgy wi...Who is really at fault? I think it is the dodgy wideboy wankers who borrowed the money and didn't pay it back; one in particular springs to mind.<br /><br />I notice none of them are in the dock and if they had paid what they owed then there would not be a problem.<br /><br />An interesting philosophical question: is it the guy who borrows money to dig a big hole in the ground, or the dickhead stupid enough to lend him the money to do so, who is at fault?Mr Lineberrynoreply@blogger.com