4 ms·

I am sorry but this bothers me to no end. (Why is nobody seeing it as i do :) > One issue the regulatory agency raised was conflict of interest [… between mana

I am sorry but this bothers me to no end. (Why is nobody seeing it as i do :) > One issue the regulatory agency raised was conflict of interest [… between managers and stakeholders] combined with > Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._ This conflict of interest goes far beyond the monetary aristocracy! Am i the only one who sees it between the interest of individuals vs society?! Is this question so darn complex or am i the crazy one here? This article dares to speak about "extraction" but does not reflect one key metric: reinvestment/saving rate (down to the individual/per income). A household with small margins is much more impacted by greedflation and much more unlikely to not spend and hand down absurd wealth. So i humbly cannot contain another dull question: Extracting from and to whom in general? The reason why it bothers me so much is, you can see this elefant everywhere ... and the guys standing around, arguing what snake its tail might be.

DarkNova6 3y ago
Some people even claim that this is a natural process. But this phenomenon is most visible in the US and UK. It is the logical result of privatization and market liberalization from past decades. Power and wealth has shifted from the commons to private ownership and this is only going to continue. Of course this would be a different story if private actors had to play by the same rules, but if you amass enough capital, you are „too big to fail“ for capitalism and your losses are paid by the public. Too big to fail should nowadays be called „too big to exist“.
- boppo1 3y ago
  >you are „too big to fail“ for capitalism Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    If the market intervention is driven by and for the benefit of the people, you might call it socialism. "Too big to fail" is crony capitalism.
  - RoseRose 3y ago
    > Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism. I mean I'd argue the "too big to fail bailots" are a particularly ineffective bit of market intervention in the long term, but generally speaking "market intervention to save the health of the economy" is bog-standard neoliberal, capitalist ideology. The only whiff of socialism comes from recognizing that without guardrails the fully freed economy will destabilize, possibly from angry with pitchforks, angry they can't afford food, shelter, and the basics. So—it is still serving the ultimate needs of the capitalists who run society by not ousting them when they do destabilizing things. Plus, if this weren't capitalism, no society in history would have been capitalist making it a bit of a useless word for sticking to extant political movements.
  - dfxm12 3y ago
    "Corporate socialism" is the privatization of the profits and socializing the risks. Who owns the banks that were bailed out by the US government in 08? hint: they weren't nationalized; they're still private. Capitalism comes in many forms. If market intervention enforces private ownership of capital, it is still a feature of Captialism.
    - Phiwise_ 3y ago
      Didn't think I'd run into the Department of Housing and Urban Development on HN today. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure they're the best party to be asking for capitalist definitions in this dispute.
  - Guvante 3y ago
    So when capitalism fails to provide a solution to problems it creates isn't capitalism that fixes it so capitalism isn't to blame anymore?
  - b59831 3y ago
    [dead]
  - DarkNova6 3y ago
    For everybody who truly thinks in "socialism" and "free market" got scammed. This is not about a question of ideology. It's about the wealthy being protected and fostered, by any narrative necessary. On sunny days, it's liberalism, on rainy days it's socialism.
    - Blueskytech 3y ago
      Thanks for explaining something in a simple way that gets to the root of the problem. Arguing about semantics is so common.
whall6 3y ago
What exactly is the issue you’re seeing?
- throwawayqqq11 3y ago
  Ignorance. You can only solve problems that you see and with my conspiratorial hat on, i would say it is deliberate.
  - whall6 3y ago
    What is the ignorance you’re seeing here?
    - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
      In case of this article: > Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._ In terms of effected people, i would not call investors the "most vulnerable". Have-nots can't spread risk to the degree a fund manager can and are bound much more to local monopolies. "The most vulnerable ones to powerful individuals abusing their power to enrich themselfes, are portfolios." Sounds weird, doesn't it.
      - whall6 3y ago
        Sorry I’m still not following. What’s weird about that? Sounds like you’re trying to imply something but I’m not getting it.

DarkNova6 3y ago

Some people even claim that this is a natural process. But this phenomenon is most visible in the US and UK. It is the logical result of privatization and market liberalization from past decades. Power and wealth has shifted from the commons to private ownership and this is only going to continue. Of course this would be a different story if private actors had to play by the same rules, but if you amass enough capital, you are „too big to fail“ for capitalism and your losses are paid by the public. Too big to fail should nowadays be called „too big to exist“.

boppo1 3y ago
>you are „too big to fail“ for capitalism Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism.
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  If the market intervention is driven by and for the benefit of the people, you might call it socialism. "Too big to fail" is crony capitalism.
- RoseRose 3y ago
  > Isn't market intervention more like corporate socialism though? I mean that's literally not capitalism. I mean I'd argue the "too big to fail bailots" are a particularly ineffective bit of market intervention in the long term, but generally speaking "market intervention to save the health of the economy" is bog-standard neoliberal, capitalist ideology. The only whiff of socialism comes from recognizing that without guardrails the fully freed economy will destabilize, possibly from angry with pitchforks, angry they can't afford food, shelter, and the basics. So—it is still serving the ultimate needs of the capitalists who run society by not ousting them when they do destabilizing things. Plus, if this weren't capitalism, no society in history would have been capitalist making it a bit of a useless word for sticking to extant political movements.
- dfxm12 3y ago
  "Corporate socialism" is the privatization of the profits and socializing the risks. Who owns the banks that were bailed out by the US government in 08? hint: they weren't nationalized; they're still private. Capitalism comes in many forms. If market intervention enforces private ownership of capital, it is still a feature of Captialism.
  - Phiwise_ 3y ago
    Didn't think I'd run into the Department of Housing and Urban Development on HN today. Call me crazy, but I'm not sure they're the best party to be asking for capitalist definitions in this dispute.
- Guvante 3y ago
  So when capitalism fails to provide a solution to problems it creates isn't capitalism that fixes it so capitalism isn't to blame anymore?
- b59831 3y ago
  [dead]
- DarkNova6 3y ago
  For everybody who truly thinks in "socialism" and "free market" got scammed. This is not about a question of ideology. It's about the wealthy being protected and fostered, by any narrative necessary. On sunny days, it's liberalism, on rainy days it's socialism.
  - Blueskytech 3y ago
    Thanks for explaining something in a simple way that gets to the root of the problem. Arguing about semantics is so common.

whall6 3y ago

What exactly is the issue you’re seeing?

throwawayqqq11 3y ago
Ignorance. You can only solve problems that you see and with my conspiratorial hat on, i would say it is deliberate.
- whall6 3y ago
  What is the ignorance you’re seeing here?
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    In case of this article: > Mr Sudarskis argues that the most vulnerable parties are not the investors, who recieve a share of the fees and willingly sign a contract with their fund managers, _but portfolio companies._ In terms of effected people, i would not call investors the "most vulnerable". Have-nots can't spread risk to the degree a fund manager can and are bound much more to local monopolies. "The most vulnerable ones to powerful individuals abusing their power to enrich themselfes, are portfolios." Sounds weird, doesn't it.
    - whall6 3y ago
      Sorry I’m still not following. What’s weird about that? Sounds like you’re trying to imply something but I’m not getting it.