2. This kind of injustice is also committed by those who do not pay their debts when they can, or who borrow money or make purchases, foreseeing that they will not be able to pay, thus injuring others and retaining what belongs to them.
It might be true if one knew the terms. The problem faced both by business and consumers is that some 'instruments' allow for unilateral change of terms, so that the former 'promise' becomes moot in face of the new terms. Justice would demand that the borrower would have to approve. It may not have seem usurious before. It became so. This is different than steep terms demanded, historically, and up front initially, where the borrower couldn't negotiate or certainly go elsewhere and those would be termed, usury, as least where that is defined as unreasonable or excess usury.
But if the terms were known, and remained unchanged, that would be a different matter. If a settlement were offered, and often are, that is a different matter.
And so on.
There's also the 'game' that makes borrowing not an ethical matter but one more of understanding the 'rules' about how to pay, or even whether to pay. Chant recalled the story of a yuppie couple that were 'savvy and sophisticated' investors who got in over their heads when their ARM ballooned in a few short months to double or triple what they'd been paying. Yet they had no intention of selling, even taking a small loss. They knew that the 'game' was one where the creditor was a large institution, where any officer could care less about any one particular loan, where the officer himself could be working somewhere else in a month's time, and where default meant only a bad credit score as the institution took the property in an effort to sell for just what the displaced owners had been asking.
Does that become a ethical matter, or one simply of a 'game' of transactions where expectations were met and no one was felt cheated of a thing? Perhaps.
The problem would be more with the investors. If such became a problem, if too many loans were simply written off in this way in exchange for the collateral of the property, then the company's fortunes would decline, and its investors would see fewer dividends, or the cessation of these, and/or a lower trading price. So where those involved in the transactions might feel as if somehow justice had been done if a borrower skips on the deal and surrenders the house, those who might feel cheated would be those who have a non-trivial stake in the company, which a mere salary does not often provide. The 'injustice' done to a loan officer, that is, is more likely to be perceived as coming from 'office politics' than from a 'deadbeat' client. But even the investor is likely unaffected by a singleton. There would have to be many loans written off, and properties seized, for it to show up in 'his money'.