5 ms·

I'd imagine Robin Hood will sell insurance, their own funds, mortgages through a broker i.e. everything that those people need and would get anywhere else. 'Ro

I'd imagine Robin Hood will sell insurance, their own funds, mortgages through a broker i.e. everything that those people need and would get anywhere else. 'RobinHood' is just a portal for sales to a generation. Also, FYI, this name 'RobinHood' i.e. a brand created to make people think somehow they are 'good' (and all of their 'occupy wallstreet we wanted to do somethiong' BS) is laughable rubbish and kind of stain on a generation. Robin Hood is the same as anything else in a different config. Nike is not somehow 'moral' because they take some arbitrary stand on their billboards. They still pay people pennies to make shoes. It's a sad statement to think any of this marketing actually works. It's fine to 'want to do good' but if people can't understand that it's only 'talk' ... well, very naive.

thewastesadtime 7y ago
no ethical consumption under capitalism, and all that
malandrew 7y ago
The thing that is odd about Robinhood is how it's a myth that has evolved pretty dramatically in how it is popularly interpreted and understood. Previously it was about a world where the productive class had their wealth usurped by the taxman and a man who took that money back to give it to those that produced that wealth. Now it's interpreted as a story about a man that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. There is no longer any consideration for who generated the wealth in the first place. Nowadays, your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial. The difference is the Robinhood now steals from the latter instead of the former.
- mindslight 7y ago
  That's a disingenuous interpretation which just bakes in your desired framework. What actually changed is that abstraction increases the disconnect between making money and generating wealth. Much of that parasitic "taxman" class now claims to be in the private sector.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  These are always really interesting comments because it shows exactly what happens when one is reductionist- up to the point where it agrees with their pre-existing views. Taxation is theft- they're taking your private property! The legitimacy of property rights, however, is rarely questioned. A common response is that property rights are obviously necessary- that society couldn't function without them. The same argument, though, applies to things like taxation! "Obviously, we need some taxes just to keep society running- roads, water, firefighting..." isn't an uncommon argument from more centrist types, and that tastes exactly the same as "property rights are necessary for civilization". The fact is, the moral authority of "I can kill you if you try to use this object, or enter this area of the world, which I call 'mine'" is just as worth questioning as that of "I can kill you if you try to use this object, or enter this area of the world, which I call 'mine'- unless you're authorized by a democratically elected, representative government, and we as citizens have collectively agreed that each of us must contribute towards the common good." If taxation is theft, then killing somebody to defend or retrieve your property is cold-blooded, probably premeditated, murder.
  - XMPPwocky 7y ago
    And a little afterthought- > your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial This voluntary-involuntary distinction is just sort of asserted without a lot of examination of the actual situation. You're starving. Somebody else has bread for sale. You can buy the bread for an inflated price or starve. Is this voluntary? Perhaps it is- even though in practice you had no meaningful choice, in that particular situation the best outcome for you comes from paying almost any sum for that bread. There's an argument there that you chose to buy it willingly, rather than starve. You also have an option not to pay taxes! If you pay, you do so willingly. Yes, you'll wind up in prison, but- the best outcome for you comes from paying the taxes. You had a choice- you decided to purchase your freedom. This was voluntary. In fact, assuming a rational actor, in this shallow definition, practically everything they do is voluntary- if a spy is being tortured and gives up some information, they did so willingly- after all, they could have continued to suffer. If you're being held up at gunpoint, you choose to hand over your wallet- you make the rational choice that losing some cash and having to cancel your credit cards is preferable to being shot. Now consider one last situation- You're locked in a room, starving. There is some bread on a table. You go and try to eat the bread, but are stopped by a man with a gun. He will kill you if you eat it, he says, unless you pay him first. Your options are to die by starvation, get shot, or pay money. Is your choice to continue to live and to pay the money a voluntary one? And did you notice that this is the same situation as the first one?
- sonnyblarney 7y ago
  No, 'Robin Hood' was never about that. Robin Hood long predates any kind of even basic economics. Even those concepts you site a little tricky in 2029. It's about as complex as a Tranformers or Fast and Furious film: ugly authoritarian tax guy takes money from people and treats them like crap, Robin Hood fights back. That's it. It's the ultimate in populism.

thewastesadtime 7y ago

no ethical consumption under capitalism, and all that

malandrew 7y ago

The thing that is odd about Robinhood is how it's a myth that has evolved pretty dramatically in how it is popularly interpreted and understood. Previously it was about a world where the productive class had their wealth usurped by the taxman and a man who took that money back to give it to those that produced that wealth. Now it's interpreted as a story about a man that takes from the rich and gives to the poor. There is no longer any consideration for who generated the wealth in the first place. Nowadays, your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial. The difference is the Robinhood now steals from the latter instead of the former.

mindslight 7y ago
That's a disingenuous interpretation which just bakes in your desired framework. What actually changed is that abstraction increases the disconnect between making money and generating wealth. Much of that parasitic "taxman" class now claims to be in the private sector.
XMPPwocky 7y ago
These are always really interesting comments because it shows exactly what happens when one is reductionist- up to the point where it agrees with their pre-existing views. Taxation is theft- they're taking your private property! The legitimacy of property rights, however, is rarely questioned. A common response is that property rights are obviously necessary- that society couldn't function without them. The same argument, though, applies to things like taxation! "Obviously, we need some taxes just to keep society running- roads, water, firefighting..." isn't an uncommon argument from more centrist types, and that tastes exactly the same as "property rights are necessary for civilization". The fact is, the moral authority of "I can kill you if you try to use this object, or enter this area of the world, which I call 'mine'" is just as worth questioning as that of "I can kill you if you try to use this object, or enter this area of the world, which I call 'mine'- unless you're authorized by a democratically elected, representative government, and we as citizens have collectively agreed that each of us must contribute towards the common good." If taxation is theft, then killing somebody to defend or retrieve your property is cold-blooded, probably premeditated, murder.
- XMPPwocky 7y ago
  And a little afterthought- > your wealth still goes to either the taxman involuntary by threat of licit force by the state or to voluntarily people that provide you goods and services that you deem beneficial This voluntary-involuntary distinction is just sort of asserted without a lot of examination of the actual situation. You're starving. Somebody else has bread for sale. You can buy the bread for an inflated price or starve. Is this voluntary? Perhaps it is- even though in practice you had no meaningful choice, in that particular situation the best outcome for you comes from paying almost any sum for that bread. There's an argument there that you chose to buy it willingly, rather than starve. You also have an option not to pay taxes! If you pay, you do so willingly. Yes, you'll wind up in prison, but- the best outcome for you comes from paying the taxes. You had a choice- you decided to purchase your freedom. This was voluntary. In fact, assuming a rational actor, in this shallow definition, practically everything they do is voluntary- if a spy is being tortured and gives up some information, they did so willingly- after all, they could have continued to suffer. If you're being held up at gunpoint, you choose to hand over your wallet- you make the rational choice that losing some cash and having to cancel your credit cards is preferable to being shot. Now consider one last situation- You're locked in a room, starving. There is some bread on a table. You go and try to eat the bread, but are stopped by a man with a gun. He will kill you if you eat it, he says, unless you pay him first. Your options are to die by starvation, get shot, or pay money. Is your choice to continue to live and to pay the money a voluntary one? And did you notice that this is the same situation as the first one?
sonnyblarney 7y ago
No, 'Robin Hood' was never about that. Robin Hood long predates any kind of even basic economics. Even those concepts you site a little tricky in 2029. It's about as complex as a Tranformers or Fast and Furious film: ugly authoritarian tax guy takes money from people and treats them like crap, Robin Hood fights back. That's it. It's the ultimate in populism.