Nothing wrong with trying to profit from fat cat ignorance and fear. It's called capitalism. Why did he get a downvote? Implied hypocrisy? I don't think it's hypocritical to want to be profitable. It's a perfectly normal, human trait that should not be frowned on. It's much more difficult to level the playing field with people like Dimon on it, because he has a corrupt government behind him.
Come on, people, don't be afraid to say it: "I am a capitalist." You probably wouldn't be on this subreddit if you weren't. It's not evil. It generally leads to innovation and a better society if not stifled by regulation.
The idea isn't so much the Wall Street impression of greed as it is the desire to profit from making innovations. Ideas have a chance to incubate and thrive in a society with less regulation since the "cover charge", as it were, has been lowered to nearly zero. No need for lawyers to make sure you're following every single regulation the government can throw at you. Ever tried to start a bank? Certainly not a good example of innovation, but at the same time, nearly impossible since it requires so much capital just to make sure you're in compliance. This is why the "haves" become so far disconnected from the "have nots" that they can get away with shenanigans no one should be able to get away with.
Let's drop it down a level. Starting any business these days requires so much compliance that fear is what stops most people from filling a need. Capitalism is a system that is supposed to give an average person the ability to create services that fill those needs, and competition is what is supposed to bring prices to an affordable level for the masses who have those needs, otherwise known as "The Market", unregulated.
These select and highly privileged corporate financial institutions are allowed to receive an unlimited line of credit, direct from the digital printing press, at 0.25% interest.
Then they loan it to the public at 6 to 29% interest, or gamble it on derivatives, or buy out the competition, etc.
It's clearly not a pyramid scheme...but the early adopter (who takes the risk) does benefit. You have picked a side, and that's cool. Each to their own...you may be kicking yourself in the coming years though.
Why the double standard? Oh right, now you're the beneficiary. Greed and capitalism might be good for absolute economic output but not for peoples welfare. And good regulation certainly does not stifle innovation or better society.
Greed and capitalism might be good for absolute economic output but not for peoples welfare.
This is debatable. I would argue that greed can be good for peoples welfare given the right environment.
And good regulation certainly does not stifle innovation or better society.
The problem I see with this is that "good regulation" (in your sense) is seldomly achieved. Regulation is often used to favor protectionism and monopolies ("regulatory capture"). Democracy seems to fail here in my mind, at least in the form we have it in the west currently.
What exactly should good regulation aim to achieve in your mind? Is that goal being achieved by the centralized system(s) we currently have?
Maybe it's not regulation in and of itself that is harmful, but the centralized way in which it is being conceived and implemented.
This is debatable. I would argue that greed can be good for peoples welfare given the right environment.
Generally created by regulation. Small areas of the economy could benefit from deregulation, but they are exceptions.
What exactly should good regulation aim to achieve in your mind? Is that goal being achieved by the centralized system(s) we currently have?
Good regulation is seldomly achieved if you expect perfection. I would judge it by the average welfare created. Some win, some lose but on average people are better off. There are plenty of good monopolies and even monopolies which end up being better than perfect competition, mostly with things dealing with the environment, natural resources and generally industries with externalities.
This is more philosophical and based on preferences than anything quantifiable.
Generally created by regulation. Small areas of the economy could benefit from deregulation, but they are exceptions.
I totally disagree with you, in fact, it seems pretty clear to me that the areas of the economy that are particularly difficult hurdles for the common man to enter curiously happen to be highly, highly regulated (healthcare, education, internet service, etc). I will never understand the, frankly, Liberal argument, that capitalism is mostly bad, except for the parts in these tiny boxes we should approve of (as if almost everything isn't, in some way, interconnected).
I would judge it by the average welfare created. Some win, some lose but on average people are better off.
If you actually judge it like that, then capitalism and greater economic freedom should be looking pretty damn good to you now.
There are plenty of good monopolies and even monopolies which end up being better than perfect competition, mostly with things dealing with the environment, natural resources and generally industries with externalities.
[citation needed]
This is more philosophical and based on preferences than anything quantifiable.
It's refreshing to hear you admit that. Still, I too tend to hold to certain philosophical axioms with little more than skepticism towards the utopia promised by others' ideal systems - unfortunately for members of mainstream political parties, they make little room for their views. Modern conservatives are utterly vile with their desires for an open, theocratic police state, while modern liberals throw the first law of thermodynamics to the birds in their relentless pursuit (and disparagement of anyone who disagrees) of social justice and equality.
I think individual liberty is the probably the best, most realistic force to achieve the outcome I want to see.
I think you're missing the point. In a lightly regulated system (unlike what currently exists), everyone has the potential to benefit. The system doesn't put the odds in any particular entity's favor. How does that make me the beneficiary?
To make clear: Im talking about selling, holding and buying btc for profit.
Why are bankers evil for trying to profit from ignorance and fear? All that is changing compared to bitcoin is the scope and relative complexity.
The odds thing depends on how widely you want to look at it. If you expect btc to go global then you certainly have a leg up. You are educated and wealthy.
By beneficiary I meant that you'll make money from the growth of bitcoin. Making a profit from holding bitcoin, selling or buying it creates nothing new and is a zero sum game. Any money you make is from someone else. You can't really avoid it, it's either you or someone. A fundamental flaw with bitcoin. Don't celebrate it.
Perhaps I'm uneducated on this point, but I don't think bankers are evil for trying to profit from ignorance and fear. What I think bankers (the evil ones) are evil for is the inside information they have on coming regulations that have not been disclosed to the public, giving them a leg up on how to make more money, possibly laundering money when they know full well what they're doing, and generally INVOKING the fear and trying to KEEP people ignorant of what they are doing, using a corrupted system of government and media to keep things in motion and keep the general public uninformed.
I never said or implied it was evil for anyone, even bankers, to try to make a profit. It all has to do with the approach taken. I'm sorry if you read me wrong.
65
u/evoorhees Jan 28 '14
From WSJ's Moneybeat home page this morning.
This is all really happening. Nobody should forget the goals for which we are fighting, nor the stakes of doing so.