This article is authorized by the author Ying Ju. Qin An Strategy is exclusively original and published on the Toutiao platform. It is reprinted from the public account "Wanli See the World". There is a lot of exciting content, welcome to pay attention.

[Editor's note] This article was authorized by the author Ying Ju. Qin'an Strategy is exclusively original and published on the Toutiao platform. It is reprinted from the public account "Wanli See the World". There is a lot of exciting content, welcome to pay attention.

I believe everyone has seen the suspension of loans. I want to talk about this from another angle.

If you used to watch American movies or read Western legal works, one word would often appear in it, and that is "procedural justice". The law is absolutely sacred. At first glance,

sounds right, right?

There can be appropriate procedural justice, but if too much emphasis is placed on procedural justice, the final result will be that the interests of the people are not protected.

Just like the matter of unfinished buildings, my landlord has already given you money, but as a result, you, the developer and the bank, have completely shied away the responsibility through various complicated legal provisions that ordinary people cannot understand.

On the contrary, the people who gave the money have to continue to repay the loan. If they don't repay, they will become blacklisted in the credit report.

Does this still make sense? Maybe this is unreasonable, but this is the law and this is legalism.

So have you found the problem?

In fact, the law is class-based.

This is the truth that all legal experts who study Western law will not tell you.

is like have you ever seen the movie "Batman"? In American comic stories, the clown has committed countless heinous crimes.

But every time, the clown knew how to exploit loopholes in the legal process and successfully escaped legal justice.

In the end, the so-called Batman's crime-fighting became a game.

Batman goes to catch the clown again and again, and the clown escapes the law again and again.

But every Batman movie will explain to you in a very sensational way why Batman's principle of not killing is sacred.

Batman believes that if he directly eliminates the bully clown, the procedural justice of the law will be destroyed.

Even a heinous criminal like a clown should receive a fair trial under the law. If he has no rules, he is no different from a clown.

If you think Batman is right, then in the end you will find that this is a dead end.

Because of Batman's non-killing principle, no matter how many people the clown kills, Batman can only capture the clown and take him to the police station. The cunning clown can always take advantage of the loopholes in the legal process and be familiar with it, making himself eternal. He will only be sent to a mental hospital, not sentenced to death.

After entering the mental hospital, the clown will be familiar with the loopholes in the mental hospital's management rules to successfully escape from prison, and then start committing crimes again and again, and will be caught by Batman again and again, repeating this cycle.

We know that the clown is committing crimes, and he has obviously put down his crimes, but because the clown is good at calculation, he can escape death every time.

In the end, it is actually equivalent to the clown not suffering any price every time.

This internal logic is exactly the same as the suspension of loans for unfinished buildings.

Did you give the money to the developer? Gave it. Did the developer give you the things you bought? No.

Then I haven’t received the goods, why do I still have to pay the mortgage? If you don't pay it back, you'll be blacklisted.

I know that the bank can definitely tell you a bunch of so-called legal provisions.

But let’s recall, what is the original intention of the so-called procedural justice? It is to promote true fairness and to ensure that things have a truly fair outcome.

The prerequisite for the establishment of procedural justice is that it can promote factual justice and result justice.

If procedural justice not only fails to promote factual justice and result justice, it also protects the interests of the perpetrators.

Then such procedural justice itself is unjust.

The clown did commit a crime, and he did kill many people with cruel means. Letting such a person out would be very harmful. Simple emotions tell us that the common sense is that the clown should be executed and executed immediately.

If procedural justice causes harm to public interests, and repeatedly and seriously violates basic common sense of human ethics and factual justice, then there is no doubt that the procedure is wrong.

These wrong provisions should be revised, rather than thinking that the people have done something wrong.

This is why I say that the law is actually class-based.

If a law is based on the interests of the people, then when faced with specific matters, appropriate adjustments must be made to the procedures to conform to the most fundamental interests of the people.

On the contrary, if a law only blindly emphasizes the importance of stable game rules, then this kind of dogmatism will only safeguard the interests of the bourgeoisie .

And this is the core reason why Gotham's big oligarch Bruce Wayne is really unwilling to punish the Joker on the spot.

Because only by rigidly defending Gotham City , a provision that should have been adjusted long ago, evil people will never be sentenced to death .

After all, the clown is only considered evil. Compared with the bloody primitive accumulation of the oligarch Wayne family, the clown may be considered a relatively innocent person.

agrees with the unfinished building.

We are a socialist country . The significant difference between a socialist country and a capitalist country is that a socialist country protects the interests of the majority of people, while a capitalist country only protects the interests of a few capitalists.

This is why Western capitalist countries place such emphasis on procedural justice.

If a society protects the interests of the majority of people, then when it comes to issues like unfinished buildings, we cannot just stick to pure rules and regulations, but must make adjustments based on the actual interests of the public.

We are a socialist country, and many property owners have indeed suspended their loans, but they did not suspend their loans subjectively out of malicious intent to violate the law, but because they had no choice but to do so.

I can’t see the home I bought with my whole life savings, the economy is not good, and I still have such a heavy loan every month. There is no hope of solving the problem.

This is just like the movie " I am not the god of medicine ". Does the patient still not know whether this medicine is fake?

Can a person with a little bit of simple morals not know whether this mortgage should be repaid?

People just buy a bottle of water. The money is given to you, but where is the water? If there is no water, should we at least return the money to others?

I saw some people say that the developers did not do it on purpose. They used the money to develop projects. It is not good to stop lending in this way, and it will only make the developers have no money to start construction.

But I want to say, how can there be such a reason? Does the person who owes money really think that he is an uncle?

If the law upholds fairness and justice, then logically speaking, after the owners of unfinished buildings stop lending, it is the real estate developers who should really be put on the credit blacklist, right?

If the law upholds fairness and justice, then what we should really do is not blacklist the owners whose loans have been suspended, but hold the real estate developers accountable and get their money back.

In fact, this incident also profoundly tells us one thing: Don’t just learn to engage in financial innovation. For things like off-plan housing, it completely transfers risks to society and leaves profits to capitalists.

The greatest advantage of China's development is socialism, not financial innovation. We should always remember this.

Only socialism can save China, only socialism can develop China, and only by adhering to the party's leadership can the Chinese nation rejuvenate.

I believe that in the end, the country will be able to provide a good solution to this matter, but it is undoubtedly a profound lesson.

Financial privatization is not a panacea, but a dark side.