4 ms·

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

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
    > I don’t know why HN is acting so strange regarding replies today It's a speedbump. You have to wait a few minutes before replying to a reply. It encourages reflecting on what the other person is saying instead of launching into what you already wanted to say. > 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. I don't admit that. We disagree on who the intended audience is. It's not decision-makers looking for a policy recommendation. It's investors who want to know what will happen to their investments. > I’m always curious about people that go out of their way to defend big, awful organizations and their terrible agendas. > cheerleaders for this sort of godawful naked “fuck the poor” rhetoric are the aspirational “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Surprise surprise, people on HN will give you push-back when you say something outrageous. Maybe you'd find better luck somewhere like r/wallstreetbets where you'll get many upboats for saying something along the lines of "Bankers, evil bastards, amirite?"
    - newbie789 5y ago
      > It's not decision-makers looking for a policy recommendation. It's investors who want to know what will happen to their investments. Ohhh. Your position is that the intended audience is your everyday Joe looking out for their retirement. Who amongst us hasn’t taken some of our paychecks, put it into a Roth IRA and then immediately rushed to read the words of… uh, Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at JP Morgan Asset Management? Your position is fascinating because now the goalposts have moved from “he’s not advocating for homelessness and an unchecked spread of a pandemic” to “actually it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s advocating for homelessness and an unchecked spread of a pandemic because his intended readers are incapable of facilitating what he’s advocating for. Under this assumption that nothing he writes could possibly be seen as bad. He could in theory instead of advocating for people being forcibly removed from their homes and thrown into abject poverty, advocate for just straight up shooting poor people in their faces. I mean surely the intended audience doesn’t have a gun! He could advocate for incest to keep family money in the family. That’s not abhorrent, it’s how the Hapsburgs did things, so it’s an objectively normal thing to say! From your position, there’s literally nothing that he could have said that you’d dislike. The level of fealty that temporarily embarrassed millionaires give to the people that don’t know that they exist is frankly phenomenal. JP Morgan isn’t going to pay you to defend them from an inconsequential internet stranger, but you post like you think they will. Edit: The part of this that’s so incredibly comical, bordering on farcical is the motion that the “intended audience” of ‘Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at JP Morgan Asset Management‘ does not include any any people that could be in a position to set policies regarding foreclosures. In order to believe that you have to simply believe that nobody in the banking industry talks to one another or reads anything related to their industry. It’s like a panicked lie from a toddler or a dog caught eating trash: The only option is to invent a new reality, whole cloth, on the spot and update it as needed.
newbie789 5y ago
For whatever reason I’m unable to respond to the response to this, so I’ll put this here: > 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. This is starting to sound like something from a fever dream. I pointed out that this man is advocating for increased homelessness and preventable death on the premise that increased homelessness and death will create more profits for existing and would-be customers of JP Morgan. So far, the responses have been: 1. No he isn’t advocating for death and homelessness at all 2. He just thinks it’d be profitable and is sharing his objective opinion in such a way that should not be construed as advice for existing or possible investment banking clients. And now… 3. He’s not advocating for increased homelessness and death, but if he were to come off that way it’s because -while he’s NOT giving advice- he’s written a form of advertisement that looks like advice to institutional investors in order to attract clients that would take his advice, which is entirely different from what’s been written in the article. It’s not an article advocating for homelessness! It’s an ad for a service that may or may not advocate for homelessness after you pay them! It’s entirely plausible that the author tells his clients to reduce foreclosures! The facts that he’s stated his opinion, is in a position to be taken seriously and is published by one of the biggest corporations on the planet are all coincidental and any criticism of his position should not be taken seriously due to the fact that he could be… what? Lying? Again, this is some slapstick nonsense. The sheer amount of words people come up with to avoid saying “I literally don’t care who lives or dies, or human dignity so long as my portfolio performs well “ is astonishing. Treating these sort of prescriptions (which is what this is, full stop) as some sort of magically objective, academic collection of facts is a form of mental gymnastics to create some distance between yourself and what happens to people in the name of your 401k. “It’s just an objective forecast!” is a binky to soothe a guilty conscience.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  Again, and one last time, he is not advocating for what society should do. He is predicting what it will do, which is what an insight is. That is the service he provides to his customers: predicting the future. His customers want the best guess for what the future holds because knowing that is the best way to make money, or at least not lose it. You keep conflating predicting what will happen (foreclosures, immunity via vaccination or infection) with advocating for what should be done (kick people out, get everyone sick) and then attacking a strawman.

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
  > I don’t know why HN is acting so strange regarding replies today It's a speedbump. You have to wait a few minutes before replying to a reply. It encourages reflecting on what the other person is saying instead of launching into what you already wanted to say. > 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. I don't admit that. We disagree on who the intended audience is. It's not decision-makers looking for a policy recommendation. It's investors who want to know what will happen to their investments. > I’m always curious about people that go out of their way to defend big, awful organizations and their terrible agendas. > cheerleaders for this sort of godawful naked “fuck the poor” rhetoric are the aspirational “temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” Surprise surprise, people on HN will give you push-back when you say something outrageous. Maybe you'd find better luck somewhere like r/wallstreetbets where you'll get many upboats for saying something along the lines of "Bankers, evil bastards, amirite?"
  - newbie789 5y ago
    > It's not decision-makers looking for a policy recommendation. It's investors who want to know what will happen to their investments. Ohhh. Your position is that the intended audience is your everyday Joe looking out for their retirement. Who amongst us hasn’t taken some of our paychecks, put it into a Roth IRA and then immediately rushed to read the words of… uh, Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at JP Morgan Asset Management? Your position is fascinating because now the goalposts have moved from “he’s not advocating for homelessness and an unchecked spread of a pandemic” to “actually it doesn’t matter whether or not he’s advocating for homelessness and an unchecked spread of a pandemic because his intended readers are incapable of facilitating what he’s advocating for. Under this assumption that nothing he writes could possibly be seen as bad. He could in theory instead of advocating for people being forcibly removed from their homes and thrown into abject poverty, advocate for just straight up shooting poor people in their faces. I mean surely the intended audience doesn’t have a gun! He could advocate for incest to keep family money in the family. That’s not abhorrent, it’s how the Hapsburgs did things, so it’s an objectively normal thing to say! From your position, there’s literally nothing that he could have said that you’d dislike. The level of fealty that temporarily embarrassed millionaires give to the people that don’t know that they exist is frankly phenomenal. JP Morgan isn’t going to pay you to defend them from an inconsequential internet stranger, but you post like you think they will. Edit: The part of this that’s so incredibly comical, bordering on farcical is the motion that the “intended audience” of ‘Michael Cembalest, Chairman of Market and Investment Strategy at JP Morgan Asset Management‘ does not include any any people that could be in a position to set policies regarding foreclosures. In order to believe that you have to simply believe that nobody in the banking industry talks to one another or reads anything related to their industry. It’s like a panicked lie from a toddler or a dog caught eating trash: The only option is to invent a new reality, whole cloth, on the spot and update it as needed.

newbie789 5y ago

For whatever reason I’m unable to respond to the response to this, so I’ll put this here: > 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. This is starting to sound like something from a fever dream. I pointed out that this man is advocating for increased homelessness and preventable death on the premise that increased homelessness and death will create more profits for existing and would-be customers of JP Morgan. So far, the responses have been: 1. No he isn’t advocating for death and homelessness at all 2. He just thinks it’d be profitable and is sharing his objective opinion in such a way that should not be construed as advice for existing or possible investment banking clients. And now… 3. He’s not advocating for increased homelessness and death, but if he were to come off that way it’s because -while he’s NOT giving advice- he’s written a form of advertisement that looks like advice to institutional investors in order to attract clients that would take his advice, which is entirely different from what’s been written in the article. It’s not an article advocating for homelessness! It’s an ad for a service that may or may not advocate for homelessness after you pay them! It’s entirely plausible that the author tells his clients to reduce foreclosures! The facts that he’s stated his opinion, is in a position to be taken seriously and is published by one of the biggest corporations on the planet are all coincidental and any criticism of his position should not be taken seriously due to the fact that he could be… what? Lying? Again, this is some slapstick nonsense. The sheer amount of words people come up with to avoid saying “I literally don’t care who lives or dies, or human dignity so long as my portfolio performs well “ is astonishing. Treating these sort of prescriptions (which is what this is, full stop) as some sort of magically objective, academic collection of facts is a form of mental gymnastics to create some distance between yourself and what happens to people in the name of your 401k. “It’s just an objective forecast!” is a binky to soothe a guilty conscience.

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
Again, and one last time, he is not advocating for what society should do. He is predicting what it will do, which is what an insight is. That is the service he provides to his customers: predicting the future. His customers want the best guess for what the future holds because knowing that is the best way to make money, or at least not lose it. You keep conflating predicting what will happen (foreclosures, immunity via vaccination or infection) with advocating for what should be done (kick people out, get everyone sick) and then attacking a strawman.