4 ms·

How does your link support your assertion of corruption?

lisper 7y ago
The link doesn't. The experience you will have if you actually go try to start a bank will. I only provided the link to point you to the entrance of the rabbit hole.
- Symmetry 7y ago
  I don't see how the fact that the process of becoming a bank is strictly regulated means that it's corrupt?
  - lisper 7y ago
    It doesn't. What makes it corrupt is that banks are not in fact strictly regulated, it only appears that way. But there is no way I can prove that to you in an HN comment. I would have to write a book. I can point you to a lot of circumstantial evidence but there is nothing probative in the public record (see below). The only definitive evidence I have of the corruption in the system is my personal experience, some accounts of which I have published on my blog. But if you don't put credence in my conclusion, then you will likely not put credence in my evidence either, because I can't prove any of it. The only way I can prove it is to invite you to undertake the same journey I did. If you do that, I predict you will learn first-hand the same thing I did: the system is corrupt, and whether or not you succeed in penetrating it will ultimately depend entirely on whether you have the right connections and whether they decide that you can be trusted to toe the line on the unwritten rules, the first of which is that you never talk about the unwritten rules to anyone who is not a member of the club. Note that I never joined the club, so my theory of the unwritten rules is pure speculation. No one ever sat me down and said, "Look, son, this is how it is..." But I did spend ten years of my life on this, and during that time I accumulated a lot of evidence that I have a very hard time explaining in any other way. It eventually led me to a serious existential crisis. BTW, it's not just the financial system. Academia is corrupt in much the same way, and in that case I did join the club so I can speak to that with some authority. That experience is one of the things that allowed me to recognize what I was seeing in the financial industry. But both academia and finance are centuries-old industries. They have become very skilled at hiding their corruption from prying eyes, and a big part of the strategy is making it appear that anyone who accuses them of corruption is a crackpot. (Which is, of course, exactly what a crackpot would say, and that, too, is part of the strategy. It's a horrible catch-22.) So you have to decide whether to believe me or not, whether you think I'm a crackpot or not. Before you jump to a conclusion I invite you to look up my record. My life is pretty well documented on the web.
    - cortesoft 7y ago
      I think this might come down to how you define corruption.
      - lisper 7y ago
        I define it the way the dictionary does: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power in order to advance their own interests over those of others. How would you define it?
        glofish 7y ago
        the magnitude of it matters. Order a Big Mac - does it look like the ad? Probably not. Drink a Cola, does it feel like your life has turned around, probably not. is advertising dishonest - of course, but we all know that and we learned to deal with it. Is advertising corrupt, I would not say that. Thus for something to be truly corrupt it needs to go beyond a certain level of illegality. There are plenty of small banks and credit unions out there thus the point that you cannot open a bank is not quite valid. Are some of the rules onerous, probably. Are some of the rules unfair and ridiculous, probably ... does it mean it is corrupt I don't think so.
        lisper 7y ago
        > the magnitude of it matters. The cost to consumers of financial corruption runs into the many billions of dollars. > There are plenty of small banks and credit unions out there thus the point that you cannot open a bank is not quite valid. I did not say that you couldn't open a bank. I said that if you tried you would see firsthand evidence of the corruption of the system. The problem is not that the rules are onerous. The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently.
        glofish 7y ago
        > The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently. Of course not. Never are, again you are not saying much here. Also with the billions of wasted dollars. Of course, but that is a natural consequence of dealing with immense scope - it is going to be very inefficient and stupid. Still a far cry from actual corruption. I feel that people tossing around the word corruption don't really understand what it means and it is a hyperbole - only undercuts the message. A bit like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld - he is not really a nazi in any shape or form - don't even mention real nazis in the same context.

The link doesn't. The experience you will have if you actually go try to start a bank will. I only provided the link to point you to the entrance of the rabbit hole.

Symmetry 7y ago
I don't see how the fact that the process of becoming a bank is strictly regulated means that it's corrupt?
- lisper 7y ago
  It doesn't. What makes it corrupt is that banks are not in fact strictly regulated, it only appears that way. But there is no way I can prove that to you in an HN comment. I would have to write a book. I can point you to a lot of circumstantial evidence but there is nothing probative in the public record (see below). The only definitive evidence I have of the corruption in the system is my personal experience, some accounts of which I have published on my blog. But if you don't put credence in my conclusion, then you will likely not put credence in my evidence either, because I can't prove any of it. The only way I can prove it is to invite you to undertake the same journey I did. If you do that, I predict you will learn first-hand the same thing I did: the system is corrupt, and whether or not you succeed in penetrating it will ultimately depend entirely on whether you have the right connections and whether they decide that you can be trusted to toe the line on the unwritten rules, the first of which is that you never talk about the unwritten rules to anyone who is not a member of the club. Note that I never joined the club, so my theory of the unwritten rules is pure speculation. No one ever sat me down and said, "Look, son, this is how it is..." But I did spend ten years of my life on this, and during that time I accumulated a lot of evidence that I have a very hard time explaining in any other way. It eventually led me to a serious existential crisis. BTW, it's not just the financial system. Academia is corrupt in much the same way, and in that case I did join the club so I can speak to that with some authority. That experience is one of the things that allowed me to recognize what I was seeing in the financial industry. But both academia and finance are centuries-old industries. They have become very skilled at hiding their corruption from prying eyes, and a big part of the strategy is making it appear that anyone who accuses them of corruption is a crackpot. (Which is, of course, exactly what a crackpot would say, and that, too, is part of the strategy. It's a horrible catch-22.) So you have to decide whether to believe me or not, whether you think I'm a crackpot or not. Before you jump to a conclusion I invite you to look up my record. My life is pretty well documented on the web.
  - cortesoft 7y ago
    I think this might come down to how you define corruption.
    - lisper 7y ago
      I define it the way the dictionary does: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power in order to advance their own interests over those of others. How would you define it?
      - glofish 7y ago
        the magnitude of it matters. Order a Big Mac - does it look like the ad? Probably not. Drink a Cola, does it feel like your life has turned around, probably not. is advertising dishonest - of course, but we all know that and we learned to deal with it. Is advertising corrupt, I would not say that. Thus for something to be truly corrupt it needs to go beyond a certain level of illegality. There are plenty of small banks and credit unions out there thus the point that you cannot open a bank is not quite valid. Are some of the rules onerous, probably. Are some of the rules unfair and ridiculous, probably ... does it mean it is corrupt I don't think so.
        lisper 7y ago
        > the magnitude of it matters. The cost to consumers of financial corruption runs into the many billions of dollars. > There are plenty of small banks and credit unions out there thus the point that you cannot open a bank is not quite valid. I did not say that you couldn't open a bank. I said that if you tried you would see firsthand evidence of the corruption of the system. The problem is not that the rules are onerous. The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently.
        glofish 7y ago
        > The problem is that the rules are not applied evenly and transparently. Of course not. Never are, again you are not saying much here. Also with the billions of wasted dollars. Of course, but that is a natural consequence of dealing with immense scope - it is going to be very inefficient and stupid. Still a far cry from actual corruption. I feel that people tossing around the word corruption don't really understand what it means and it is a hyperbole - only undercuts the message. A bit like the Soup Nazi in Seinfeld - he is not really a nazi in any shape or form - don't even mention real nazis in the same context.