<p>Laxattack, (to get back on topic) if you see no difference between a family losing its home and its entire net worth and a part time CEO seeing his inflated stock fall from 9 figures to 8 - well, I guess it will be hard to explain it to you, but I’ll try.</p>
<p>Let’s assume there are two thieves. One steals $300 Million dollars, gets caught, and is forced to give back $285 million of it. He keeps $15 million and is “forced” to get by on that.</p>
<p>The second thief steals $300,000, but spends $15,000 of it to live on, so he can only give back $285,000. He’s broke and thrown in jail. </p>
<p>Has the first thief been punished more because he gave back more? Or is the second thief punished more because he’s rotting in a jail cell with nothing? </p>
<p>Now, this is an imperfect analogy, but you really need to start analyzing social issues with a little more sophisticated mathematics than you’ve demonstrated so far, and I’m trying to help you grow in that direction, OK?</p>