4 ms·

On a related note, I wonder why glorified investors like Michael Burry aren’t instead demonized for contributing to, and profiting from, the near collapse of th

On a related note, I wonder why glorified investors like Michael Burry aren’t instead demonized for contributing to, and profiting from, the near collapse of the American economy in 2008 (obviously it’s not Burry’s fault that banks gave out shit mortgages, nor is it Soros’ fault that the pound sterling was overvalued. They both took large positions to profit off these events as economies crashed)

Ferrotin 5y ago
Because Burry et al helped collapse it sooner and softer, and their profits came from the banks’ losses.
- helen___keller 5y ago
  > Because Burry et al helped collapse it sooner and softer Could you not make the same argument for Soros? > their profits came from the banks’ losses. Where do you think that money came from? When mortgages go bad, the banks foreclose the property and sell it. When the banks go bad, the government props them up (in 2008) by buying their toxic assets The sale of those toxic assets let banks cover their bad positions, including those with Burry Burrys profit came from foreclosures and the American government (in the narrative sense that Soros’ money came from the people of England) Which again begs the question of why Soros is the villain and not also Burry
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
mannerheim 5y ago
I've seen people make comments critical of Burry and others. I don't understand this mindset myself.
TMWNN 5y ago
>On a related note, I wonder why glorified investors like Michael Burry aren’t instead demonized for contributing to, and profiting from, the near collapse of the American economy in 2008 I think it's the scale. Soros was in 1992 already a billionaire, I believe, and was very, very famous on Wall Street. Burry is a medical doctor who fell into running a small (by Wall Street standards) hedge fund because his personal investing was so successful. While he made a lot of money, had Burry had Soros's resources in 2007-2008 he might have made far, far, far more. To put another way, had Soros, not Burry, been the public face of those who saw the 2008 crash coming and invested accordingly, he would have received a lot more criticism.

Ferrotin 5y ago

Because Burry et al helped collapse it sooner and softer, and their profits came from the banks’ losses.

helen___keller 5y ago
> Because Burry et al helped collapse it sooner and softer Could you not make the same argument for Soros? > their profits came from the banks’ losses. Where do you think that money came from? When mortgages go bad, the banks foreclose the property and sell it. When the banks go bad, the government props them up (in 2008) by buying their toxic assets The sale of those toxic assets let banks cover their bad positions, including those with Burry Burrys profit came from foreclosures and the American government (in the narrative sense that Soros’ money came from the people of England) Which again begs the question of why Soros is the villain and not also Burry
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

mannerheim 5y ago

I've seen people make comments critical of Burry and others. I don't understand this mindset myself.

TMWNN 5y ago

>On a related note, I wonder why glorified investors like Michael Burry aren’t instead demonized for contributing to, and profiting from, the near collapse of the American economy in 2008 I think it's the scale. Soros was in 1992 already a billionaire, I believe, and was very, very famous on Wall Street. Burry is a medical doctor who fell into running a small (by Wall Street standards) hedge fund because his personal investing was so successful. While he made a lot of money, had Burry had Soros's resources in 2007-2008 he might have made far, far, far more. To put another way, had Soros, not Burry, been the public face of those who saw the 2008 crash coming and invested accordingly, he would have received a lot more criticism.