4 ms·

You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a ca

You’re of the opinion that the author does have a crystal ball and is objectively relating what can be known about the future(s)? And he’s doing so in such a careful manner that he’s painstakingly taken immense care to ensure that his musings are not interpreted as prescriptive? That’s not my interpretation

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.
- newbie789 5y ago
  So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.
  - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
    > So the phrase "will require" is descriptive and not prescriptive? In this instance yes, I think so. So the accusation that the author is advocating for the things he describes (and thus morally bankrupt) comes down to the words "will require" in the lede? "X will require Y" is another way of saying "X won't happen until Y" and doesn't indicate favor for the cause or the effect in question. And I'm not saying it isn't his opinion. Obviously these are his opinions. There is a difference between having an opinion on what you think will happen and having an opinion on what should or ought to (rightly, justly) happen. In the body where he elaborates on his predictions in the lede he actually uses the words "will probably require", indicating he is not certain what will happen but describing what he thinks is most likely. So there is no confusion here that he is sharing opinions on future events, and not describing what will certainly happen like some sort of psychic.
    - newbie789 5y ago
      This is a fascinating word game! He doesn’t actually think that in order to increase returns it’s a good idea to increase foreclosures and allow further spread of a pandemic. He doesn’t actually want or openly advocate for these measures. He’s just a big brained genius that’s doling out little gems of the future to us plebs out of the kindness of his heart, free of charge. In order to maximize the philanthropic value of this stoic and unbiased gift to the reader (which I’m assuming is for a regular Joe who would never consider taking any of this as advice?), he’s chosen the notably objective and not-profit-driven community information sharing website, jpmorgan dot com
      - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
        Bankers generally put out analyses like this to convince would-be clients that their firm can make them money by making smart predictions about the future.
        newbie789 5y ago
        I don’t know why HN is acting so strange regarding replies today but here we go: > Again, and one last time, he is not advocating for what society should do. He is predicting what it will do, To mirror your language: Again, and for one last time: The intended audience is, by your own admission, possible banking clients. “Institutional investors“ is a category of organizations that have the ability to ramp up foreclosures and/or reduce COVID measures in their businesses. Perhaps there is some difficulty distinguishing between some random nobody tweeting “lol I think foreclosures are good” and a banking professional “suggesting” that “maybe if the homeless population increases along with fewer Covid concerns, my clients as a professional would make more money. Wink wink!” on an enormous and well-respected platform. I’m always curious about people that go out of their way to defend big, awful organizations and their terrible agendas. When I was younger, I intuitively guessed that the folks defending the banks were the lavish, decadent rich people. Oddly enough I’ve found that that’s not normally the case, the biggest cheerleaders for this sort of godawful naked “fuck the poor” rhetoric are the aspirational “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Good tidings!

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago

No, I don't think he is clairvoyant. He is making a forecast, a prediction about what might likely happen in the near future.

newbie789 5y ago
So the phrase “will require” is descriptive and not prescriptive? That’s news to me because I was of the opinion that the future, having not happened yet and has such has never been observed, cannot be objectively described. This whole premise of “It’s not his opinion, his brain is just so big that the awful things he outwardly advocates for should be considered facts about the future, which he’s capable of observing and commenting on due to his aforementioned big brain.” is nakedly designed to carry water for people that have semi-psychopathic opinions. For example, the opinion that there won’t be enough boats on the ocean unless the homeless population increases definitely sounds like some sort of superstitious hokum, but because it’s on a bank website it’s to be treated as if it’s as logically consequent as the laws of thermodynamics. This is beyond silly. It’s slapstick.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  > So the phrase "will require" is descriptive and not prescriptive? In this instance yes, I think so. So the accusation that the author is advocating for the things he describes (and thus morally bankrupt) comes down to the words "will require" in the lede? "X will require Y" is another way of saying "X won't happen until Y" and doesn't indicate favor for the cause or the effect in question. And I'm not saying it isn't his opinion. Obviously these are his opinions. There is a difference between having an opinion on what you think will happen and having an opinion on what should or ought to (rightly, justly) happen. In the body where he elaborates on his predictions in the lede he actually uses the words "will probably require", indicating he is not certain what will happen but describing what he thinks is most likely. So there is no confusion here that he is sharing opinions on future events, and not describing what will certainly happen like some sort of psychic.
  - newbie789 5y ago
    This is a fascinating word game! He doesn’t actually think that in order to increase returns it’s a good idea to increase foreclosures and allow further spread of a pandemic. He doesn’t actually want or openly advocate for these measures. He’s just a big brained genius that’s doling out little gems of the future to us plebs out of the kindness of his heart, free of charge. In order to maximize the philanthropic value of this stoic and unbiased gift to the reader (which I’m assuming is for a regular Joe who would never consider taking any of this as advice?), he’s chosen the notably objective and not-profit-driven community information sharing website, jpmorgan dot com
    - jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
      Bankers generally put out analyses like this to convince would-be clients that their firm can make them money by making smart predictions about the future.
      - newbie789 5y ago
        I don’t know why HN is acting so strange regarding replies today but here we go: > Again, and one last time, he is not advocating for what society should do. He is predicting what it will do, To mirror your language: Again, and for one last time: The intended audience is, by your own admission, possible banking clients. “Institutional investors“ is a category of organizations that have the ability to ramp up foreclosures and/or reduce COVID measures in their businesses. Perhaps there is some difficulty distinguishing between some random nobody tweeting “lol I think foreclosures are good” and a banking professional “suggesting” that “maybe if the homeless population increases along with fewer Covid concerns, my clients as a professional would make more money. Wink wink!” on an enormous and well-respected platform. I’m always curious about people that go out of their way to defend big, awful organizations and their terrible agendas. When I was younger, I intuitively guessed that the folks defending the banks were the lavish, decadent rich people. Oddly enough I’ve found that that’s not normally the case, the biggest cheerleaders for this sort of godawful naked “fuck the poor” rhetoric are the aspirational “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Good tidings!