4 ms·

> "An investor deserves to make their money back" Few sentiments make my blood boil more than this. No, you are absolutely not entitled to a return on your in

> "An investor deserves to make their money back" Few sentiments make my blood boil more than this. No, you are absolutely not entitled to a return on your investment, or even to recoop your investment. That's why it's called an investment, not 'arbitrage'. If you're trying to force the working class to pay for your ill advised, failed investments, you're an economic cancer in the sense that your existence is detrimental to the health of the greater system, you contribute negative value, and the greater system would be better off if you ceased to exist. Also, like cancer, if this is permitted to happen, the ideology will spread and further reduce the health and capabilities of the greater system. > "And there is real money at stake." Once again, ugh. No, there wasn't. This Gordon dude was one of the guys artificially inflating the cost of housing by irresponsibly lending to otherwise unqualified people. That's why it was called the 'housing bubble', exactly because the inflated value of mortgages at the time was divorced from reality. What an unethical snake. We'd be better off if all these degenerate gamblers on wall street were to go back to Vegas like the old days. It's all the drugs, sex work, and criminality they're familiar with, but in a setting that doesn't take down every productive member of the American economy along with them. (Sorry to throw you under the Bus, Vegas, but at least you have experience taking a tithe from people like this)

lo_zamoyski 2y ago
Indeed. What an arrogant statement. A true investment shares in the risk. That's what the whole "skin in the game" talk was about soon after the subprime mortgage crisis. And besides, housing (or debt!) is not per se an investment for the banks, but a place for people to live that they can own. Usury (which effectively includes all compound interest) is banned in Islamic banking, and condemned by the Catholic Church (still is and always will be, contrary to misconception), for a reason. And it will impoverish your society and drive it into debt slavery, and put it at the mercy of the lenders. We need banking, we need finance, but these are only legitimate when they make money from licit investments in productive enterprise, and from legitimate service fees, not compound interest. When I hear arguments like "well, the banker has to charge interest, because why else would he loan money?" or "he has to charge interest because he might not get his money back, and because of opportunity cost", I am floored. This is shameless narcissism. No one forced the banker to loan money. Lending is not supposed to be about making money. If you are making lots of money off lending, then you are by definition stealing it, because housing is not a productive asset where the loan is concerned. You aren't funding a startup that you have good reason to believe will make a profit from its labor and resulting value.

lo_zamoyski 2y ago

Indeed. What an arrogant statement. A true investment shares in the risk. That's what the whole "skin in the game" talk was about soon after the subprime mortgage crisis. And besides, housing (or debt!) is not per se an investment for the banks, but a place for people to live that they can own. Usury (which effectively includes all compound interest) is banned in Islamic banking, and condemned by the Catholic Church (still is and always will be, contrary to misconception), for a reason. And it will impoverish your society and drive it into debt slavery, and put it at the mercy of the lenders. We need banking, we need finance, but these are only legitimate when they make money from licit investments in productive enterprise, and from legitimate service fees, not compound interest. When I hear arguments like "well, the banker has to charge interest, because why else would he loan money?" or "he has to charge interest because he might not get his money back, and because of opportunity cost", I am floored. This is shameless narcissism. No one forced the banker to loan money. Lending is not supposed to be about making money. If you are making lots of money off lending, then you are by definition stealing it, because housing is not a productive asset where the loan is concerned. You aren't funding a startup that you have good reason to believe will make a profit from its labor and resulting value.