4 ms·

> the crash was the logical consequence of people all doing the "right thing" I did not read the book, but I highly suspect 'right thing' is misused in this c

by Gys 8y ago

> the crash was the logical consequence of people all doing the "right thing" I did not read the book, but I highly suspect 'right thing' is misused in this context and that the writer actually means 'within the boundaries of the law'. To me that is a very different thing. Very interesting to see how a former head of Bank of England thinks those 'things' are the same. It also makes me pessimistic about the future of our civilization.

pc86 8y ago
Perhaps rather than assuming you know what the author meant you should actually read the book.
- and0 8y ago
  Sounds like typical "rational actor" arguments. Everyone was trying to make the most money possible using the tools and information available, and if your political / moral philosophy can't distinguish that from "morally good" then all you can do is shrug. Surprise! The guy who heads a massive bank doesn't think all the crazy things banks do to make money are bad.
ThomPete 8y ago
I would highly recommend you read the book. It's not that simple. Keep in mind this is not just a question of greedy banks this is a question of politicians allowing for people to buy houses because they know for many that's the only way they will ever be able to save up for retirement. It's also a question of how Central Banks are run and used and attemps to keep the economy stable. In other words many many many factors are involved in this giant system. That there are people who were doing fraudulent things is obvious but those things do not explain the crash in itself. The mistake many do is put the moral analysis in front of the system analysis and yes then you will end up with moral solutions without addressing the underlying systemic problems with keeping a world economy going. The book dives deep into this and shows how it can be structured differently because it's more concerned with solving the systemic problem which one could argue is a more ethical position than pointing fingers at human nature. The point of the book is that the crash was not the result of some mastermind but rather a consequence of a lot of good intended decisions which simply had unintented conequences.

by Gys 8y ago

pc86 8y ago

Perhaps rather than assuming you know what the author meant you should actually read the book.

and0 8y ago
Sounds like typical "rational actor" arguments. Everyone was trying to make the most money possible using the tools and information available, and if your political / moral philosophy can't distinguish that from "morally good" then all you can do is shrug. Surprise! The guy who heads a massive bank doesn't think all the crazy things banks do to make money are bad.

ThomPete 8y ago

I would highly recommend you read the book. It's not that simple. Keep in mind this is not just a question of greedy banks this is a question of politicians allowing for people to buy houses because they know for many that's the only way they will ever be able to save up for retirement. It's also a question of how Central Banks are run and used and attemps to keep the economy stable. In other words many many many factors are involved in this giant system. That there are people who were doing fraudulent things is obvious but those things do not explain the crash in itself. The mistake many do is put the moral analysis in front of the system analysis and yes then you will end up with moral solutions without addressing the underlying systemic problems with keeping a world economy going. The book dives deep into this and shows how it can be structured differently because it's more concerned with solving the systemic problem which one could argue is a more ethical position than pointing fingers at human nature. The point of the book is that the crash was not the result of some mastermind but rather a consequence of a lot of good intended decisions which simply had unintented conequences.