5 ms·

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 t

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.

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.