46 ms·
Think about who gets hurt if the banking system collapses. It ripples out into the rest of the economy, because in fact the economy runs on debt. It would be ha
by twblalock 4y ago
Think about who gets hurt if the banking system collapses. It ripples out into the rest of the economy, because in fact the economy runs on debt. It would be harder to maintain existing businesses and start new ones if there was a credit crunch -- we lived through a credit crunch after 2008 and it was very bad for everyone.
Even if you want certain people to get hurt by this (and there is definitely a baying mob that seems to want to cause as much suffering as possible because they just don't like certain classes of people), keep in mind that this could cause a 2008-style recession that hurts everyone.
Who do you think gets hurt more by an economic downturn? The billionaires who lose millions and end up still being rich, or the working people who lose their jobs and can't afford housing? This isn't a theoretical question, we know the answer because it happened before.
- xeromal 4y agoSounds similar to when people were rooting for airlines and auto manufactures to just die in 2008 to say "fuck the rich". I'm glad they were all saved.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- bumby 4y agoIn human psychology, fairness is a big driving force in society. I think studies have regularly shown that people will tolerate outcomes that are objectively worse for themselves if the alternative seems unfair but objectively better. People are not rational. Homo economicus is a myth.
- xeromal 4y agoSpite is a strong motivator.
- harimau777 4y agoI think it's less about spite and more about a desire for justice.
- xeromal 4y agoIsn't spite just wanting that version of karma or justice but hurting yourself in the process. If we let these banks collapse it's definitely going to hurt lower income people more than wealthy people so to me that is 100% spite
- HWR_14 4y agoNo. Spite is hurting yourself to hurt someone else. A desire for karma is willing to hurt yourself for justice. They look very similar, but are different.
- Godel_unicode 4y ago> Spite is hurting yourself to hurt someone else. That is incorrect, spite is seeking the deliberate harm of another. It’s possible for spite to include hurting yourself to inflict it, but that’s not in any way necessary.
- HWR_14 4y agoSure, and karma doesn't require hurting yourself either. I meant in the specific case we were discussing, in which harming yourself was already baked into the situation. I admit I could have been clearer initially and am sorry I spoke clumsily.
- twblalock 4y agoThen people need to slow down and think about what justice really is -- is hurting the rich really justice if everyone else gets hurt too?
- 4y ago
- kybernetikos 4y ago> People are not rational. Homo economicus is a myth. It's possible to be a rational maximiser of something other than profit.
- bumby 4y agoPossible, but I don’t think research has ever identified that utility function being optimized.
- sumedh 4y ago> I'm glad they were all saved. You are glad that rich execs play Heads they win and Tails they dont lose game at the expense of the taxpayer?
- CydeWeys 4y agoThis is not what happened to plane/automobile manufacturers. The banks, you could argue yes. But these were collateral damage.
- twblalock 4y agoTaxpayers aren't paying for this, and in 2008 the government actually made money on the bailouts, so taxpayers didn't pay for that either.
- TurkishPoptart 4y agoHow come this won't cause inflation? That hurts taxpayers.
- sumedh 4y agoThere was no guarantee that the govt will make money but there is a guarantee it creates a moral hazard. If you are a banker take excessive risks and enjoy the profits, if things go wrong, the govt will bail you out. Heads I win, Tails I dont lose. You also ignored that govt/Fed keeps printing more money, so the taxpayer ultimately loses with inflation.
- katzgrau 4y agoI have some off-the-grid and expat friends who I suspect are rooting for a collapse primarily to justify all the shit they did and said. These types seem to thrive on doom and I have no doubt they've always existed throughout history. Eventually I suppose they'll be right, but primarily as a result of one of those broken clock coincidences ...
- steve76 4y ago[dead]
- hellojesus 4y agoThe desire to let it all burn comes from those who played by the rules. The government's intervention creates moral hazard: those that played with fire got burnt, and those who didn't didn't, but those who didn't get burnt were positioning themselves to take advantage of the opportunities that the crispy bodies would have generated. But the government swooped in and saved the crispies, without penalty to them, at the cost of those who had proper risk-adjusted positioning. We see this time and time again. The government is changing the rules after the game is over to change the losers to winners. It's nonsense.