4 ms·

I think the author has suffered from a lot of psychological pain stemming from his childhood, and I can sympathize a lot with that. I think he really did have

I think the author has suffered from a lot of psychological pain stemming from his childhood, and I can sympathize a lot with that. I think he really did have a wealth addiction, like he describes. However, that doesn't generalize to the entire industry. People (especially men) like money and power because of the benefits they brings. It doesn't have to be an addiction. Furthermore, the idea that it would take an addiction to wealth not to see how immoral the finance industry is, is reliant on having very specific (and wrong, in my opinion) political views.

benched 13y ago
I agree. In fact, the article seemed disingenuous to me from the first sentence. As if he's trying too hard to hit a 'can you believe my lack of perspective' note. But I don't see it. Sure, if you have millions, your personal material needs are taken care of many times over, and you're very fortunate. But the difference between 5 and 100 million is very real. There are plenty of significant things you can do with 100 million that you cannot do with 5 million. And once you're at that altitude, that probably becomes that much clearer.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  I think his overarching point is that these people (by and large) do NOT do anything 'significant' with their millions. They don't even participate in a part of society that is useful beyond making ridiculous amounts of money. That was why I believe he highlights that he has started speaking to the less fortunate and trying to 'make a difference' towards the end of the article. Edit: Not to say this guy still doesn't sound like a total twat. Look at how he ends with a sales pitch...
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
chroem 13y ago
There was an article a while back that discussed how most people's perception of what is "enough" wealth is always ~30% more than what they currently have, be it thousands or millions of dollars. Unfortunately I can't find the article at the moment, but the point still stands that, to a certain extent, wealth addiction has become embedded in our culture and we are taught to seek it from a young age. So to say that the financial industry is somehow immune to something everyone else around them is suffering from seems to be pretty disingenuous.
- gjm11 13y ago
  I'm sure there are a lot of people in the finance industry who constantly think that "enough" is 30% more than they currently have (or maybe rather more than that -- someone well placed in finance can accumulate wealth pretty fast). I wonder, though, how much of what's gone wrong with finance is because of that. The spectacular cockups and conspiracies that have become public seem to be more about seriously pathological greed than about ordinary garden-variety wanting-a-bit-more. (Also, I offer myself as a counterexample to the strongest versions of the enough-is-30%-more theory: my current estimate of how much is "enough" is lower than it was 10 years ago, even though I have a lot more money now than I had then. However, I am not in the finance industry and I'm only one person :-).)
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Yes, I was sharp, good with numbers. I had marketable talents. But in the end I didn’t really do anything. I was a derivatives trader, and it occurred to me the world would hardly change at all if credit derivatives ceased to exist. Hits the nail on the head for me. In the end these people make incredible amounts of money for doing what amounts to a job that is worthless to the society at large.
- philosophus 13y ago
  If it is "worthless to the society at large" then why do people pay for it? Are they insane? It's popular to beat up on the financial industry, but they do actually do something: finance loans. Without them, good luck getting a mortgage, car loan, or a loan to start a business.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    You're seriously attempting to imply that there were no loans/lending of money before 1993 (when the derivatives markets became a 'thing')? Or are you just talking about the financial sector in general (and even so there were loans long before that.) Wall St. does not exist so people can get loans to purchase houses/cars... You may be missing some points about loans vs trading here...
    - gfodor 13y ago
      You're seriously attempting to imply that there is no value provided by a highly liquid and efficient derivatives market? I'm not going to say these people are earning an amount commensurate to the value they provide to society, but pretending that they are just running a casino is equally naive.
      - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
        I would say they provide little to no value to the average person no. Please clarify what they provide to society at large (meaning most people and not just large portfolios or predatory credit companies)? Greater security and insulation against bad investments? (which to be clear the vast majority of people do not have enough money to make in the first place.) Seems a lot like playing odds at a Casino, to use your example, to me. And your edit is valid they do not provide the value (though there may be some, if little) that their millions of dollars in bonuses/salary would imply.

benched 13y ago

I agree. In fact, the article seemed disingenuous to me from the first sentence. As if he's trying too hard to hit a 'can you believe my lack of perspective' note. But I don't see it. Sure, if you have millions, your personal material needs are taken care of many times over, and you're very fortunate. But the difference between 5 and 100 million is very real. There are plenty of significant things you can do with 100 million that you cannot do with 5 million. And once you're at that altitude, that probably becomes that much clearer.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
I think his overarching point is that these people (by and large) do NOT do anything 'significant' with their millions. They don't even participate in a part of society that is useful beyond making ridiculous amounts of money. That was why I believe he highlights that he has started speaking to the less fortunate and trying to 'make a difference' towards the end of the article. Edit: Not to say this guy still doesn't sound like a total twat. Look at how he ends with a sales pitch...
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

chroem 13y ago

There was an article a while back that discussed how most people's perception of what is "enough" wealth is always ~30% more than what they currently have, be it thousands or millions of dollars. Unfortunately I can't find the article at the moment, but the point still stands that, to a certain extent, wealth addiction has become embedded in our culture and we are taught to seek it from a young age. So to say that the financial industry is somehow immune to something everyone else around them is suffering from seems to be pretty disingenuous.

gjm11 13y ago
I'm sure there are a lot of people in the finance industry who constantly think that "enough" is 30% more than they currently have (or maybe rather more than that -- someone well placed in finance can accumulate wealth pretty fast). I wonder, though, how much of what's gone wrong with finance is because of that. The spectacular cockups and conspiracies that have become public seem to be more about seriously pathological greed than about ordinary garden-variety wanting-a-bit-more. (Also, I offer myself as a counterexample to the strongest versions of the enough-is-30%-more theory: my current estimate of how much is "enough" is lower than it was 10 years ago, even though I have a lot more money now than I had then. However, I am not in the finance industry and I'm only one person :-).)

ItendToDisagree 13y ago

Yes, I was sharp, good with numbers. I had marketable talents. But in the end I didn’t really do anything. I was a derivatives trader, and it occurred to me the world would hardly change at all if credit derivatives ceased to exist. Hits the nail on the head for me. In the end these people make incredible amounts of money for doing what amounts to a job that is worthless to the society at large.

philosophus 13y ago
If it is "worthless to the society at large" then why do people pay for it? Are they insane? It's popular to beat up on the financial industry, but they do actually do something: finance loans. Without them, good luck getting a mortgage, car loan, or a loan to start a business.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  You're seriously attempting to imply that there were no loans/lending of money before 1993 (when the derivatives markets became a 'thing')? Or are you just talking about the financial sector in general (and even so there were loans long before that.) Wall St. does not exist so people can get loans to purchase houses/cars... You may be missing some points about loans vs trading here...
  - gfodor 13y ago
    You're seriously attempting to imply that there is no value provided by a highly liquid and efficient derivatives market? I'm not going to say these people are earning an amount commensurate to the value they provide to society, but pretending that they are just running a casino is equally naive.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      I would say they provide little to no value to the average person no. Please clarify what they provide to society at large (meaning most people and not just large portfolios or predatory credit companies)? Greater security and insulation against bad investments? (which to be clear the vast majority of people do not have enough money to make in the first place.) Seems a lot like playing odds at a Casino, to use your example, to me. And your edit is valid they do not provide the value (though there may be some, if little) that their millions of dollars in bonuses/salary would imply.