4 ms·

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealin

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Also being rich vs poor, and Wall St vs Main Street, are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. You can become rich without working in finance. And you can hate Wall St's culture and also be rich. I don't think that all the people who are pissed about the financial crisis are poor or that they think being poor is noble. That seems like a pretty false dichotomy. Being poor does truly suck! I think the main issue the author is pointing out is how ignoble it is to be unhappy with a 2mil bonus for a job that really isn't that important in the big scheme of things. 2mil is a lot of money for the vast majority of people and bitching about it just makes you out to be an asshole. If that is a cultural issue with that section of finance then that seems like a legitimate concern.

mindcrime 13y ago
As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Yes that's been stated, but I wouldn't say that it's been proven. There are a LOT of theories about what did and didn't happen as part of the 2008 financial crisis and in the run-up to it. For a take (from an insider) that may be a bit different from some of what has been said elsewhere, read John A. Allison's The Financial Crisis And The Free-Market Cure. Not saying Allison's take is 100% correct, but I just want to point out there are are certainly different points of view on that crisis. I don't think that all the people who are pissed about the financial crisis are poor or that they think being poor is noble. Fair enough. I didn't read TFA as being mainly about the 2008 crisis specifically, but that could be a mistake on my part. I do tend to generalize a bit as well. I think the main issue the author is pointing out is how ignoble it is to be unhappy with a 2mil bonus for a job that really isn't that important in the big scheme of things. 2mil is a lot of money for the vast majority of people and bitching about it just makes you out to be an asshole. I can (and do) agree that complaining about a $2MM bonus makes you something of an asshole, especially from some points-of-view. I think what bothers me about these articles is the implicit suggestion that "something ought to be done", which leads to the idea of more regulations, more laws, more rules, more restrictions, etc., which I believe - by and large - are counter-productive. Again, see the John Allison book... if one buys his angle (and I mostly do), there's a strong argument there that it was government policy and the behaviour of government regulators, things dating back to the LBJ era, if not earlier, that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. Anything that reads as an argument for more government involvement evokes something of a visceral reaction from me, since I am a proponent of laissez-faire. It also frustrates me when I see people seemingly painting a picture of "wall street VS main street". I don't think that's accurate at all, and I think it's an unhealthy attitude. "Wall Street" and "Main Street" are just different views of the same system. The people of "main street" can certainly leverage capital markets to build wealth... you don't have to be a bigshot wall-street insider to do that. And, in fact, many pension funds, university endowments, etc., are heavily invested in "Wall Street" which means that many people ultimately do benefit from growth in the markets, even if they aren't day-trading or investing as individuals. Of coure I'm not saying that everybody on Wall Street is perfect, or faultless or anything. I just think it would be better if everybody saw Wall Street as something they can take part in and benefit from, not as some mythical enemy.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  There are lots of insiders who think that the issues with derivatives market were the cause... In fact the commodity futures trading commission more or less said that their evaluation was that there was a concerted effort to use derivatives to obfuscate risks and for the most part caused the issue. That is fine that one guy wrote a book about the crisis. And it is very nice that he decided to pass the buck on who was at fault by using the stale "Big Government Is Bad!" and "Any Regulation Is Big Government!" lines. But when the group in charge of looking after derivatives (ICE Trust, an industry self-regulatory body), that is independent of the government, comes out and says that after looking into the issue there was a fault with the actual system... I tend to give them a bit more credit... Perhaps everyone should just believe John Allison and his incredibly strong (Ayn) Randian ideological bent though? Also you seem to be missing the point on the Wall St. vs Main St. thing... The bigger issue to most is that somehow Wall St. firms are 'too big to fail' and the little guy (read: everyone else) had to give them a huge bailout because they gambled and lost. In the eyes of most, its as if they had to pay for someone's trip to the casino, out of their own taxes. It's not about being able to leverage capital markets... It's about having to pay for your losses yourself, rather than having everyone else bail your ass out to the tune of billions of dollars. Taking all of the risk out of the system for the big boys, while it still exists for everyone else seems pretty BS (especially if you're part of 'everyone else'). Edit: Wall St. isn't 'bad' but the way it shook out this time was utterly bullshit and people have the right to be angry and adversarial about it.
  - mindcrime 13y ago
    There are lots of insiders who think that the issues with derivatives market were the cause... In fact the commodity futures trading commission more or less said that their evaluation was that there was a concerted effort to use derivatives to obfuscate risks and for the most part caused the issue. Again, I'm not arguing that it hasn't been stated, or suggested, or argued that "derivatives were one of the big causes of the crisis". I'm arguing that it hasn't been proven, and that there are other, credible, competing views. And even to the extent that derivatives might have been a significant part of what happened, one can question if they were the cause - or whether there might have been "upstream" causes which pulled the derivatives trading along for the ride. That is fine that one guy wrote a book about the crisis. And it is very nice that he decided to pass the buck on who was at fault by using the stale "Big Government Is Bad!" and "Any Regulation Is Big Government!" lines. A lot of people wrote books about the crisis. But from your discussion here it seems to me that your mind is made up regarding what did or didn't happen, so this discussion is probably pointless. Perhaps everyone should just believe John Allison and his incredibly strong (Ayn) Randian ideological bent though? Are you suggesting that? Because I'm not. And what, exactly, does Rand have to do with this? Ideology is irrelevant, an argument is sound (or not) regardless of the ideological orientation of the initiator of that argument. 8Also you seem to be missing the point on the Wall St. vs Main St. thing... The bigger issue to most is that somehow Wall St. firms are 'too big to fail' and the little guy (read: everyone else) had to give them a huge bailout because they gambled and lost. In the eyes of most, its as if they had to pay for someone's trip to the casino, out of their own taxes.* Oh, whoah, whoah, whoah... you seem to be assuming that I approved of the bailouts. Absolutely not. I was as angry as anybody you're going to meet about that bullshit. And yes, that particular aspect of the whole situation, the "why should I bail you out because you made bad choices" line of thinking, I mostly support. * It's about having to pay for your losses yourself, rather than having everyone else bail your ass out to the tune of billions of dollars. Taking all of the risk out of the system for the big boys, while it still exists for everyone else seems pretty BS (especially if you're part of 'everyone else').* Absolutely. But I see that as an indictment of the corruption in our government, and the "crony capitalism" we have going on, not as an indictment of just "Wall Street" in and of itself.

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Also being rich vs poor, and Wall St vs Main Street, are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination. You can become rich without working in finance. And you can hate Wall St's culture and also be rich. I don't think that all the people who are pissed about the financial crisis are poor or that they think being poor is noble. That seems like a pretty false dichotomy. Being poor does truly suck! I think the main issue the author is pointing out is how ignoble it is to be unhappy with a 2mil bonus for a job that really isn't that important in the big scheme of things. 2mil is a lot of money for the vast majority of people and bitching about it just makes you out to be an asshole. If that is a cultural issue with that section of finance then that seems like a legitimate concern.

mindcrime 13y ago

As has been stated... The derivatives trading business was a prime culprit for the crash of 2008 so I think it is fair to say that some lying, cheating, stealing went on and the subsection of finance the author was involved in was complacent in it. Yes that's been stated, but I wouldn't say that it's been proven. There are a LOT of theories about what did and didn't happen as part of the 2008 financial crisis and in the run-up to it. For a take (from an insider) that may be a bit different from some of what has been said elsewhere, read John A. Allison's The Financial Crisis And The Free-Market Cure. Not saying Allison's take is 100% correct, but I just want to point out there are are certainly different points of view on that crisis. I don't think that all the people who are pissed about the financial crisis are poor or that they think being poor is noble. Fair enough. I didn't read TFA as being mainly about the 2008 crisis specifically, but that could be a mistake on my part. I do tend to generalize a bit as well. I think the main issue the author is pointing out is how ignoble it is to be unhappy with a 2mil bonus for a job that really isn't that important in the big scheme of things. 2mil is a lot of money for the vast majority of people and bitching about it just makes you out to be an asshole. I can (and do) agree that complaining about a $2MM bonus makes you something of an asshole, especially from some points-of-view. I think what bothers me about these articles is the implicit suggestion that "something ought to be done", which leads to the idea of more regulations, more laws, more rules, more restrictions, etc., which I believe - by and large - are counter-productive. Again, see the John Allison book... if one buys his angle (and I mostly do), there's a strong argument there that it was government policy and the behaviour of government regulators, things dating back to the LBJ era, if not earlier, that ultimately led to the 2008 crisis. Anything that reads as an argument for more government involvement evokes something of a visceral reaction from me, since I am a proponent of laissez-faire. It also frustrates me when I see people seemingly painting a picture of "wall street VS main street". I don't think that's accurate at all, and I think it's an unhealthy attitude. "Wall Street" and "Main Street" are just different views of the same system. The people of "main street" can certainly leverage capital markets to build wealth... you don't have to be a bigshot wall-street insider to do that. And, in fact, many pension funds, university endowments, etc., are heavily invested in "Wall Street" which means that many people ultimately do benefit from growth in the markets, even if they aren't day-trading or investing as individuals. Of coure I'm not saying that everybody on Wall Street is perfect, or faultless or anything. I just think it would be better if everybody saw Wall Street as something they can take part in and benefit from, not as some mythical enemy.

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
There are lots of insiders who think that the issues with derivatives market were the cause... In fact the commodity futures trading commission more or less said that their evaluation was that there was a concerted effort to use derivatives to obfuscate risks and for the most part caused the issue. That is fine that one guy wrote a book about the crisis. And it is very nice that he decided to pass the buck on who was at fault by using the stale "Big Government Is Bad!" and "Any Regulation Is Big Government!" lines. But when the group in charge of looking after derivatives (ICE Trust, an industry self-regulatory body), that is independent of the government, comes out and says that after looking into the issue there was a fault with the actual system... I tend to give them a bit more credit... Perhaps everyone should just believe John Allison and his incredibly strong (Ayn) Randian ideological bent though? Also you seem to be missing the point on the Wall St. vs Main St. thing... The bigger issue to most is that somehow Wall St. firms are 'too big to fail' and the little guy (read: everyone else) had to give them a huge bailout because they gambled and lost. In the eyes of most, its as if they had to pay for someone's trip to the casino, out of their own taxes. It's not about being able to leverage capital markets... It's about having to pay for your losses yourself, rather than having everyone else bail your ass out to the tune of billions of dollars. Taking all of the risk out of the system for the big boys, while it still exists for everyone else seems pretty BS (especially if you're part of 'everyone else'). Edit: Wall St. isn't 'bad' but the way it shook out this time was utterly bullshit and people have the right to be angry and adversarial about it.
- mindcrime 13y ago
  There are lots of insiders who think that the issues with derivatives market were the cause... In fact the commodity futures trading commission more or less said that their evaluation was that there was a concerted effort to use derivatives to obfuscate risks and for the most part caused the issue. Again, I'm not arguing that it hasn't been stated, or suggested, or argued that "derivatives were one of the big causes of the crisis". I'm arguing that it hasn't been proven, and that there are other, credible, competing views. And even to the extent that derivatives might have been a significant part of what happened, one can question if they were the cause - or whether there might have been "upstream" causes which pulled the derivatives trading along for the ride. That is fine that one guy wrote a book about the crisis. And it is very nice that he decided to pass the buck on who was at fault by using the stale "Big Government Is Bad!" and "Any Regulation Is Big Government!" lines. A lot of people wrote books about the crisis. But from your discussion here it seems to me that your mind is made up regarding what did or didn't happen, so this discussion is probably pointless. Perhaps everyone should just believe John Allison and his incredibly strong (Ayn) Randian ideological bent though? Are you suggesting that? Because I'm not. And what, exactly, does Rand have to do with this? Ideology is irrelevant, an argument is sound (or not) regardless of the ideological orientation of the initiator of that argument. 8Also you seem to be missing the point on the Wall St. vs Main St. thing... The bigger issue to most is that somehow Wall St. firms are 'too big to fail' and the little guy (read: everyone else) had to give them a huge bailout because they gambled and lost. In the eyes of most, its as if they had to pay for someone's trip to the casino, out of their own taxes.* Oh, whoah, whoah, whoah... you seem to be assuming that I approved of the bailouts. Absolutely not. I was as angry as anybody you're going to meet about that bullshit. And yes, that particular aspect of the whole situation, the "why should I bail you out because you made bad choices" line of thinking, I mostly support. * It's about having to pay for your losses yourself, rather than having everyone else bail your ass out to the tune of billions of dollars. Taking all of the risk out of the system for the big boys, while it still exists for everyone else seems pretty BS (especially if you're part of 'everyone else').* Absolutely. But I see that as an indictment of the corruption in our government, and the "crony capitalism" we have going on, not as an indictment of just "Wall Street" in and of itself.