3 ms·

> The entire investment business (and not only that) is amoral. Guns are amoral too, but we still expect people to use them morally.

dao- 9y ago
There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.
  - dao- 9y ago
    > You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. I didn't mean to equate them and I don't think I did. I was implicitly making the same connection that you just made explicitly. > We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so. Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works?
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      > Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works? I expect (as in bound in duty or obligated) them to. However, I expect (as in predict) they will not.
    - marnett 9y ago
      Are you suggesting we stop 'hoping' (I don't hope investors act morally, I expect the regulatory apparatus to force them to, or penalize accordingly) altogether? Sure, I hope HSBC won't launder money for Mexican Cartels. And when they do, I hope that some world government decides to toss the executives in jail and fine the company out of existence. And yes, when the settlement is just a slap-on-the-wrist-fine, a low VP getting canned, and the execs sitting pretty I hope for a return in the guillotine. And they all hope that I get fed up with hoping and become hopeless. Is that what you hope as well?
  - Brockenstein 9y ago
    >We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so. Naive people do. However, part of the problem is what people believe is moral differs, it's not an absolute. Lots of people project their moralities onto society and the law and are just dumbfounded when they don't match. Is that a problem with society or the individual?
    - Slansitartop 9y ago
      That's an academic argument. The basic building block of any society is the expectation-requirement that the other members will act according to the moral principles of that society. At a minimum, the people who fail to abide by those principles can be judged and criticized for their violations. And to pull this back on track, this all came up in the context of the idea the market is amoral so we shouldn't expect the actors in that market to be anything but selfish and amoral. I think that's wrong and pernicious idea.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- marnett 9y ago
  Free-flowing capital would be regulated by who? The World Government?

dao- 9y ago

There are in fact laws for that. Soros' investments were perfectly legal from what I know. We could change this if we wanted to, Capitalism is a man-made system after all. Demonizing successful players is just pointless.

Slansitartop 9y ago
You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws to force them to do so.
- dao- 9y ago
  > You're making the mistake of equating the law with morality. Greatly simplified, the a law is just an attempt to roughly codify some moral principles and give them some teeth. I didn't mean to equate them and I don't think I did. I was implicitly making the same connection that you just made explicitly. > We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so. Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > Who really expects investors to act morally rather than doing whatever's legal? Heck, who expects Facebook to prioritize morals over profits? Don't people who have these expectations deeply misunderstand how today's economic system works? I expect (as in bound in duty or obligated) them to. However, I expect (as in predict) they will not.
  - marnett 9y ago
    Are you suggesting we stop 'hoping' (I don't hope investors act morally, I expect the regulatory apparatus to force them to, or penalize accordingly) altogether? Sure, I hope HSBC won't launder money for Mexican Cartels. And when they do, I hope that some world government decides to toss the executives in jail and fine the company out of existence. And yes, when the settlement is just a slap-on-the-wrist-fine, a low VP getting canned, and the execs sitting pretty I hope for a return in the guillotine. And they all hope that I get fed up with hoping and become hopeless. Is that what you hope as well?
- Brockenstein 9y ago
  >We still expect people to act morally, even in the absence of laws force them to do so. Naive people do. However, part of the problem is what people believe is moral differs, it's not an absolute. Lots of people project their moralities onto society and the law and are just dumbfounded when they don't match. Is that a problem with society or the individual?
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    That's an academic argument. The basic building block of any society is the expectation-requirement that the other members will act according to the moral principles of that society. At a minimum, the people who fail to abide by those principles can be judged and criticized for their violations. And to pull this back on track, this all came up in the context of the idea the market is amoral so we shouldn't expect the actors in that market to be anything but selfish and amoral. I think that's wrong and pernicious idea.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
marnett 9y ago
Free-flowing capital would be regulated by who? The World Government?