He’s just going to get people killed. But that’s ok he doesn’t give a shit anyways, so it’s moot. What are a few thousand dead peasants when we could make big stock number go up?
He’s just going to get people killed. But that’s ok he doesn’t give a shit anyways, so it’s moot. What are a few thousand dead peasants when we could make big stock number go up?
Number 3 is interesting for me… The finance sector is pretty aware of the need to control stupid risk taking, and the don’t want another GFC, so I guess they’d (broadly) want to keep some of the regulation around that. What else is there? General bad acting and things like excessive fees? That also seems to be a risk driver, in the long term, as it leads to e.g. increased loan defaults… Where do you think the key problems would be?
Edit: whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to @r00ty@kbin.life
What makes you think big finance likes to keep regulation? Someone’s loss is another one’s profit. Some people become very very rich from financial crises.
Because market crashes are not good for anyone in the sector… Hence I think the regulations brought in via the FSB in response to the GFC were broadly accepted (though probably with varying degrees of willingness).
And? A lot of the big banking execs, and the rest of the billionaire class in general, seem to largely understand that we’re at the theoretical limit of “line goes up”. They’re happy to squeeze the last bit of juice out of the lemon before they retire to some bunker in New Zealand or whatever.
Long term thinking is dead in much of the corporate world. The focus isn’t on next year, it’s on next quarter if not next week. A market crash would be easily predictable for a lot of financial firms now - they know what to spot, and the housing crash in 08 showed them that they can jump out pretty scot-free no matter what.
I’m skeptical of this. I think they are disconnected from a few fairly fundamental realities. Do you have any links that might convince me otherwise?
The rest of it I agree with, but I don’t know if that’s relevant for their interpretation of market crashes, because I think they see them as internally driven… I might be wrong here though.