4 ms·

The problem with blaming the government for this failure is that only one bank seems to have been affected. Since we are talking about sector wide regulations a

The problem with blaming the government for this failure is that only one bank seems to have been affected. Since we are talking about sector wide regulations and policies rather than anything that targeted this specific institution, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with the bank, not with the environment. Were this is a problem with law or interest rates or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more collateral damage. Instead, the only thing we see is a single bank that failed due to voluntarily tying up too much of their capital in instruments that cannot be easily liquidated.

notch898a 4y ago
1000 people are forced to roll a 10,000 sided dice. They roll a '1' and they die. At the end one person is dead. Clearly since that one person followed the sector wide regulation and polices rather than anything that targeted that specific person, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with that person, not the dice game. Were this a problem with the game or the dice or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more damage. Instead, the only thing we see is one person who lost the dice game voluntarily rolling the dice at the improper starting position and velocity that cannot be easily rolled to the correct number. Clearly this isn't the same, but the logic you've used doesn't parse and in any case the full fault is unlikely to be fully the fault of government nor the bank. And it remains to be seen if the dice game is over...
- Karunamon 4y ago
  Yes, it clearly isn't the same. In the first place, we are not talking about randomness. Your example is facile and your copy and paste sarcasm is both unwelcome and against the rules. I'm done here.
  - notch898a 4y ago
    I see so we're yet again moving the goalposts you set and now moving on to additional criteria like whether chance was involved. On the contrary, I would say quite a bit of uncertainty was involved, especially since a lowest uncertainty option was outlawed.

notch898a 4y ago

1000 people are forced to roll a 10,000 sided dice. They roll a '1' and they die. At the end one person is dead. Clearly since that one person followed the sector wide regulation and polices rather than anything that targeted that specific person, it is evidence strongly in favor of the problem being with that person, not the dice game. Were this a problem with the game or the dice or something like that, we would expect to see a lot more damage. Instead, the only thing we see is one person who lost the dice game voluntarily rolling the dice at the improper starting position and velocity that cannot be easily rolled to the correct number. Clearly this isn't the same, but the logic you've used doesn't parse and in any case the full fault is unlikely to be fully the fault of government nor the bank. And it remains to be seen if the dice game is over...

Karunamon 4y ago
Yes, it clearly isn't the same. In the first place, we are not talking about randomness. Your example is facile and your copy and paste sarcasm is both unwelcome and against the rules. I'm done here.
- notch898a 4y ago
  I see so we're yet again moving the goalposts you set and now moving on to additional criteria like whether chance was involved. On the contrary, I would say quite a bit of uncertainty was involved, especially since a lowest uncertainty option was outlawed.