so we agree that hiring illegal immigrants is ok (or at least, less bad than a financial crime)
and we agree that hiring a prostitute long term is ok (or at least, less bad than a financial crime)
so why would combining the two cross the threshold?

I used to work in finance regulations, and this would highly depends on intention, the amount of the money committed, the specific type, etc. Personally, I believe it would highly depend on what actual harm it caused for people - did it steal money from the people who otherwise would die, or did it steal money from people who are rich anyways? Without clarifications, seems to me we would just need to make a guess or research for the average case.

My feed as been nothing but new ideas today

@JonathanRay Indian factory workers earn $1.80 an hour. Adjusted by purchasing power parity, that's $6.11, which is not that much less than the US federal minimum wage of $7.25.

nice! I was just basing this on double the minimum wage which is ~$2/day

@traders Polls are up. I put them on this dashboard. Going forward this will be a standard Joshua/Bayesian type of poll/market. I've updated the description to reflect this.

Do the polls affect the resolution?

Yes for the options added before 6pm ET on June 21st

Finally something that seems really clear.

The marginal disutility of losing money is increasing; the first €100 you're scammed of hurts you less than the next €100.

So a 50% probability of losing 2X is worse than a certainty of losing X.

@BrunoParga Maybe, but I think more relevantly: If it depends on a coin toss then it is not a 'forced by circumstances' crime which makes it worse.

@ChristopherRandles I assumed all else equal.

The Robin Hood scenario. 😁

This is too vague. It depends on the dollar amount, and who the victims are.

I recommend "Doin' Your Mom" for anyone considering field research on this topic.

This one is so hard. Marijuana to a 17yr old is 🤷🏼‍♂️ while fentanyl to a toddler is clearly terrible.

Why are the 2008 bank bail outs so bad? They were just loans to banks that needed them, and kept the economy afloat

@justadude Arguable it was the only decision to make, and the US government profited in the end. It's about public perception when everyone was struggling, less about the facts of the bailout.

@Haws I don't disagree that the bailouts were necessary, just pointing out that the banks were seens as the source of the problem.

The bailouts are disliked becasue they were a failure of accountability and a symbol of the unfairness of the system. The banks had created the issue in the first place by exposing themselves to toxic securities (while at the same time fuelling the crazy mortgage environment that made the toxic securities possible). Then when it turned out it was a disaster, they got bailed out.

If the common guy makes bad investments they become homeless. If a bank makes a bad investment (or even better a lot of banks do) then they get a slap on the wrists and more money.

@Odoacre Worse: this precedence send the message that private profit and pubic risk is indeed the pattern to assume going forward and encourages future behavior like the one that caused the mess.

@Odoacre >If a bank makes a bad investment (or even better a lot of banks do) then they get a slap on the wrists and more money.

But they're not given more money. They're given a loan. On net they lost a lot of money from their bad choices.

@justadude oh it was a loan ? As in you think there was a chance they could lose that money as well ?

@Odoacre They had to pay back the loan, so they "lost" the money in that sense. If you mean there was a chance they could fail to pay back the loan, yes there was a chance of that, but the government decided it was worth the risk, and I'd agree with them.