6 ms·

You do realize that most people do not take the same opportunities because they consider them ethically and morally disgusting? That maybe we're not just a bunc

You do realize that most people do not take the same opportunities because they consider them ethically and morally disgusting? That maybe we're not just a bunch of fools floundering around bumping into just enough money to survive? I'm always amazed how opportunists think they are the only ones who thought of their schemes.

GigabyteCoin 12y ago
What was morally or ethically disgusting about Soros profiting greatly at the expense of the British Government? Do you think it's morally or ethically wrong that you paid $3 for a hamburger that McDonald's only paid $2 to produce? Opportunities and tradeoffs exist all around us. It's simply how our world works.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  I'm not going to debate whether there is a general morality to his actions or many actions of those in finance. What I was stating was that many people do not go into these lines of work and/or do things, not because they are incapable or because they do not see the same opportunities but because they think they are unethical and immoral. This may help you, and the original gentleman I responded to in understanding that its not necessarily a case of having the stronger ability but sometimes a case of having a weaker conscience.
- norswap 12y ago
  The thing about McDonals, a company making profits in a consensual trade is a total non-sequitur. What I assume is disgusting is that the British Government's money actually belong to British taxpayers, who contributed it in the first place. Those taxpayers have reasonable expectations that this money will be used to indirectly benefit them or for the good of the British people at large, and not end up squandered. Now other people correctly pointed out that the pound would have devaluated with or without Soros, so I don't think his actions where all that unethical. But as it happened so suddenly instead of the usual drawn-out game of rumors, some politicians clearly felt the burn.
  - cortesoft 12y ago
    It WAS a consensual trade between the British government and Soros, in effect.... the gov could have at any time earlier in the process stopped buying obviously over priced pounds, but they didn't.... yes, the gov was spending tax payers money in doing those deals, but the tax payers had selected John Major, and he was quite clear on his position in terms of monetary policy.
    - norswap 12y ago
      Yes it was, but that's nitpicking. I think you get my point: buying burgers and trying to manipulate the market are two rather different separate things.
      - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
        But who was trying to manipulate the market? Soros? Well, yes, he was. The British government? They also were. Why do you find one morally repugnant and not the other?
  - _3u10 12y ago
    Well, they contributed it certainly but it belongs to the British Government in right of the crown. Both parties were engaged in currency manipulation of their own free will, no one forced the british government to take their currency position.
AndrewBissell 12y ago
Go back and read the article again. Soros was able to make as much as he did because most of the market was convinced, incorrectly, that the British government would succeed in propping up the pound. This was not some trade that everyone saw the chance to make and just passed on it out of the goodness of their hearts. Big successful trades are always obvious to everyone in hindsight. I suppose one's perspective on the whole affair depends a lot on whether you think governments should be using the public treasury to manipulate markets and try to muscle asset prices in one direction or another. Since I think that is arrogant folly, and destined to end in costly failure regardless, better to have some speculator come along and put a stop to it before it can drag on and result in even more losses to the public.
- fabulist 12y ago
  Actually it was you who misunderstood. He made money because everyone saw the writing was on the wall, and that the pound was going to plummet; Soros became the triggering event. He had a first-mover's advantage. If everyone thought the pound was going to be just fine, they'd happily buy his sterling and nothing would have happened. But the expectation was that the pound was overvalued and would soon nosedive. So when Soros' sales began to apply downward pressure to the price, everyone bandwagoned because that was what they were going to do anyway.
  - waps 12y ago
    Yes, but the issue people are taking is that the will of parliament/government was not absolute. England guaranteed they would do this, signed an international treaty, then refused to do it. Like today with Ukraine. NATO's primary goal was to protect member nations territorial integrity against Russian incursion. Who here still believes NATO will do that, even if Russia just annexes the entirety of Ukraine and Poland ? The big issue people are having here is that it's an instance of clearly the government not being in control. What use is democracy if the government isn't in control ? What use is NATO if it doesn't respond to territorial incursions ?
    - salvadors 12y ago
adventured 12y ago
As opposed to all of the opportunists on the other side of the trade betting the currency would go the other direction and they'd profit off of that instead.
- ScottBurson 12y ago
  Except in this case there weren't any opportunists on the other side of the trade. The only entity crazy enough to take the other side was the British government. That's what made it such a sure thing.
cynicalkane 12y ago
I guarantee you that the average guy trying his hand at the market doesn't care about what people on the Internet might preach about their decisions later. The fact of the matter is most people don't take those opportunities because most people are very bad at speculation. Among people who have Soros-level financial power and moxie, they generally are current with economic thought, in which fixed currencies in developed countries are considered a very bad thing by just about everyone. The British government was not doing the world any favors by fixing the pound. The sooner its fixed rate was broken, the better. It is convenient to tell yourself that smart people like you are not rich because you are too good to be rich, but this doesn't align with reality, not in this particular case nor in general.
- fabulist 12y ago
  To be fair, their aims were lophty even if their methods were crude.
ripb 12y ago
>You do realize that most people do not take the same opportunities because they consider them ethically and morally disgusting? That maybe we're not just a bunch of fools floundering around bumping into just enough money to survive? If most people are so ethical and moral as to not take a bet against another entity, in this case the government, how do they reconcile significant moral and ethical issues such as the following with themselves: - The fact that a vast quantity of consumer electronic goods are made under conditions that have been documented to be absolutely horrendous in Asia? In factories whose employees are so stomped upon, that there has been a significant issue with employee suicide on the job? Those morals and ethics certainly haven't prevented "most people" from pushing demand for these consumer electronics in the West. - Industrial fishing / trawling and the sheer damage it has done to the oceans. There is sustained demand for fish caught using these methods, yet it is these methods that are destroying fish stocks so frequently that they're having trouble replenishing / breeding again. Fish we don't eat, or mammals caught in the activity, end up being tossed back into the water, dead over nothing. How do most people, being moral and ethical, not just allow this to continue but push demand for it by asking for cheaper and cheaper fish to be available? - Oil. How are most people, being honest and moral, still fueling demand for oil - and putting pressure in place for cheaper oil (thus increased quantity must be found) - when these activities are polluting oceans, destroying habitats etc. and whose proceeds are propping up very brutal, very oppressive regimes in some oil producing countries in the Middle East? I could continue listing these absolutely unethical, absolutely immoral activities that we, "most people", continue to support on a daily basis but I believe the point should be clear. "Most people" do not take advantage of economic / financial opportunities because such opportunities generally require: i - Significant capital for significant returns ii - Risk aversion, as one must risk significant capital and may have hugely negative returns, if any at all. So let us not pretend that most people took the ethical and moral high ground here.

GigabyteCoin 12y ago

What was morally or ethically disgusting about Soros profiting greatly at the expense of the British Government? Do you think it's morally or ethically wrong that you paid $3 for a hamburger that McDonald's only paid $2 to produce? Opportunities and tradeoffs exist all around us. It's simply how our world works.

fred_durst 12y ago
I'm not going to debate whether there is a general morality to his actions or many actions of those in finance. What I was stating was that many people do not go into these lines of work and/or do things, not because they are incapable or because they do not see the same opportunities but because they think they are unethical and immoral. This may help you, and the original gentleman I responded to in understanding that its not necessarily a case of having the stronger ability but sometimes a case of having a weaker conscience.
norswap 12y ago
The thing about McDonals, a company making profits in a consensual trade is a total non-sequitur. What I assume is disgusting is that the British Government's money actually belong to British taxpayers, who contributed it in the first place. Those taxpayers have reasonable expectations that this money will be used to indirectly benefit them or for the good of the British people at large, and not end up squandered. Now other people correctly pointed out that the pound would have devaluated with or without Soros, so I don't think his actions where all that unethical. But as it happened so suddenly instead of the usual drawn-out game of rumors, some politicians clearly felt the burn.
- cortesoft 12y ago
  It WAS a consensual trade between the British government and Soros, in effect.... the gov could have at any time earlier in the process stopped buying obviously over priced pounds, but they didn't.... yes, the gov was spending tax payers money in doing those deals, but the tax payers had selected John Major, and he was quite clear on his position in terms of monetary policy.
  - norswap 12y ago
    Yes it was, but that's nitpicking. I think you get my point: buying burgers and trying to manipulate the market are two rather different separate things.
    - AnimalMuppet 12y ago
      But who was trying to manipulate the market? Soros? Well, yes, he was. The British government? They also were. Why do you find one morally repugnant and not the other?
- _3u10 12y ago
  Well, they contributed it certainly but it belongs to the British Government in right of the crown. Both parties were engaged in currency manipulation of their own free will, no one forced the british government to take their currency position.

AndrewBissell 12y ago

Go back and read the article again. Soros was able to make as much as he did because most of the market was convinced, incorrectly, that the British government would succeed in propping up the pound. This was not some trade that everyone saw the chance to make and just passed on it out of the goodness of their hearts. Big successful trades are always obvious to everyone in hindsight. I suppose one's perspective on the whole affair depends a lot on whether you think governments should be using the public treasury to manipulate markets and try to muscle asset prices in one direction or another. Since I think that is arrogant folly, and destined to end in costly failure regardless, better to have some speculator come along and put a stop to it before it can drag on and result in even more losses to the public.

fabulist 12y ago
Actually it was you who misunderstood. He made money because everyone saw the writing was on the wall, and that the pound was going to plummet; Soros became the triggering event. He had a first-mover's advantage. If everyone thought the pound was going to be just fine, they'd happily buy his sterling and nothing would have happened. But the expectation was that the pound was overvalued and would soon nosedive. So when Soros' sales began to apply downward pressure to the price, everyone bandwagoned because that was what they were going to do anyway.
- waps 12y ago
  Yes, but the issue people are taking is that the will of parliament/government was not absolute. England guaranteed they would do this, signed an international treaty, then refused to do it. Like today with Ukraine. NATO's primary goal was to protect member nations territorial integrity against Russian incursion. Who here still believes NATO will do that, even if Russia just annexes the entirety of Ukraine and Poland ? The big issue people are having here is that it's an instance of clearly the government not being in control. What use is democracy if the government isn't in control ? What use is NATO if it doesn't respond to territorial incursions ?
  - salvadors 12y ago

adventured 12y ago

As opposed to all of the opportunists on the other side of the trade betting the currency would go the other direction and they'd profit off of that instead.

ScottBurson 12y ago
Except in this case there weren't any opportunists on the other side of the trade. The only entity crazy enough to take the other side was the British government. That's what made it such a sure thing.

cynicalkane 12y ago

I guarantee you that the average guy trying his hand at the market doesn't care about what people on the Internet might preach about their decisions later. The fact of the matter is most people don't take those opportunities because most people are very bad at speculation. Among people who have Soros-level financial power and moxie, they generally are current with economic thought, in which fixed currencies in developed countries are considered a very bad thing by just about everyone. The British government was not doing the world any favors by fixing the pound. The sooner its fixed rate was broken, the better. It is convenient to tell yourself that smart people like you are not rich because you are too good to be rich, but this doesn't align with reality, not in this particular case nor in general.

fabulist 12y ago
To be fair, their aims were lophty even if their methods were crude.

ripb 12y ago

>You do realize that most people do not take the same opportunities because they consider them ethically and morally disgusting? That maybe we're not just a bunch of fools floundering around bumping into just enough money to survive? If most people are so ethical and moral as to not take a bet against another entity, in this case the government, how do they reconcile significant moral and ethical issues such as the following with themselves: - The fact that a vast quantity of consumer electronic goods are made under conditions that have been documented to be absolutely horrendous in Asia? In factories whose employees are so stomped upon, that there has been a significant issue with employee suicide on the job? Those morals and ethics certainly haven't prevented "most people" from pushing demand for these consumer electronics in the West. - Industrial fishing / trawling and the sheer damage it has done to the oceans. There is sustained demand for fish caught using these methods, yet it is these methods that are destroying fish stocks so frequently that they're having trouble replenishing / breeding again. Fish we don't eat, or mammals caught in the activity, end up being tossed back into the water, dead over nothing. How do most people, being moral and ethical, not just allow this to continue but push demand for it by asking for cheaper and cheaper fish to be available? - Oil. How are most people, being honest and moral, still fueling demand for oil - and putting pressure in place for cheaper oil (thus increased quantity must be found) - when these activities are polluting oceans, destroying habitats etc. and whose proceeds are propping up very brutal, very oppressive regimes in some oil producing countries in the Middle East? I could continue listing these absolutely unethical, absolutely immoral activities that we, "most people", continue to support on a daily basis but I believe the point should be clear. "Most people" do not take advantage of economic / financial opportunities because such opportunities generally require: i - Significant capital for significant returns ii - Risk aversion, as one must risk significant capital and may have hugely negative returns, if any at all. So let us not pretend that most people took the ethical and moral high ground here.