6 ms·

Sounds 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 ago
In 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 ago
  Spite is a strong motivator.
  - harimau777 4y ago
    I think it's less about spite and more about a desire for justice.
    - xeromal 4y ago
      Isn'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 ago
        No. 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 ago
        Sure, 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 ago
      Then people need to slow down and think about what justice really is -- is hurting the rich really justice if everyone else gets hurt too?
      - Godel_unicode 4y ago
        Justice is the idea that people are treated equally, impartially, and fairly under a set of standards. If someone breaks the rules justice is them getting the same punishment anyone else would get, concerns about externalities don’t come into it. Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice. IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.
      - f-securus 4y ago
        If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.
        aceazzameen 4y ago
        B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
- 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 ago
    Possible, 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 ago
  This is not what happened to plane/automobile manufacturers. The banks, you could argue yes. But these were collateral damage.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Taxpayers 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 ago
    How come this won't cause inflation? That hurts taxpayers.
  - sumedh 4y ago
    There 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.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bumby 4y ago

In 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 ago
Spite is a strong motivator.
- harimau777 4y ago
  I think it's less about spite and more about a desire for justice.
  - xeromal 4y ago
    Isn'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 ago
      No. 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 ago
        Sure, 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 ago
    Then people need to slow down and think about what justice really is -- is hurting the rich really justice if everyone else gets hurt too?
    - Godel_unicode 4y ago
      Justice is the idea that people are treated equally, impartially, and fairly under a set of standards. If someone breaks the rules justice is them getting the same punishment anyone else would get, concerns about externalities don’t come into it. Is everyone getting hurt ideal? No. But that’s a different question than is it justice. IMO this is what happened during 2008. The government tried to minimize harm at the expense of justice, and people are angry because they don’t realize how bad it could have been.
    - f-securus 4y ago
      If the two options are a) everybody except the rich get hurt and b) everybody including the rich get hurt, then I think the majority of Americans would go with b.
      - aceazzameen 4y ago
        B is definitely where we're at. Many Americans are tired of watching the rich get bailed out with socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. Meanwhile the not-rich continue to struggle in every aspect of life, from food to housing. And blame is placed squarely on the rich, who have a greater voice in the elected government.
        CapstanRoller 4y ago
        >socialism-for-the-rich-not-for-the-poor. That's called "capitalism". Socialism has nothing to do with it. Please try not to muddle basic terminology like this. It makes discourse harder for everyone.
        hellojesus 4y ago
        No. That is called crony capitalism. True capitalism would let these banks burn and allow those who saved or have capital buy them up. No gov intervention allowed.
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 ago
  Possible, 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 ago
This is not what happened to plane/automobile manufacturers. The banks, you could argue yes. But these were collateral damage.
twblalock 4y ago
Taxpayers 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 ago
  How come this won't cause inflation? That hurts taxpayers.
- sumedh 4y ago
  There 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.