5 ms·

Most (or at least some) of the politicians likely acted in good faith, believing they were doing the best for their country. Soros knew he would leave the peopl

Most (or at least some) of the politicians likely acted in good faith, believing they were doing the best for their country. Soros knew he would leave the people devastated but didn't care.

CocaKoala 12y ago
That may be true, but I don't think it's relevant. The politicians still made bad decisions that led the country to ruin; you can say they didn't mean it, but that doesn't make it not their fault, nor does it mean it wouldn't have happened if Soros hadn't shorted the pound. And to rephrase the second sentence: Soros knew that the bad policy decisions of the politicians would leave the people devastated, but didn't care. Again, I'm not convinced that's relevant; Soros didn't make the situation, he just profited by it. That doesn't make it his fault.
edanm 12y ago
I agree with CocaKola that this isn't relevant - I'd vote against having people acting in good faith, if the end result is getting screwed. As to your other point, this is how markets are supposed to work. Soros in effect helped show the incompetency of the government, which was a net good. People got screwed, certainly, but the situation was terrible and no one did anything about it until Soros stepped in. You could say that he is similar to Snowden or other whistleblowers in many ways. They through the government into chaos, likely endangered a lot of the economy and possibly lives, and they did it all because exposing the bad things the government was doing was more important. Of course, I'm not arguing that it's the same, as the whistleblowers do this despite the fact that it ruins their lives, and Soros did it to make money. What I am saying is, it's great we've setup a system where people like Soros are incentivized to uncover government screwups, so we can do better next time.
- mercurial 12y ago
  > As to your other point, this is how markets are supposed to work. Soros in effect helped show the incompetency of the government, which was a net good. People got screwed, certainly, but the situation was terrible and no one did anything about it until Soros stepped in. > You could say that he is similar to Snowden or other whistleblowers in many ways. They through the government into chaos, likely endangered a lot of the economy and possibly lives, and they did it all because exposing the bad things the government was doing was more important. Grotesque. Soros certainly didn't give a damn about the public good. A better comparison would be somebody blowing a nuclear power plant to make a point that the security measures are insufficient. Should we congratulate terrorists next, because we can "do better" next time in terms of security? > Of course, I'm not arguing that it's the same, as the whistleblowers do this despite the fact that it ruins their lives, and Soros did it to make money. What I am saying is, it's great we've setup a system where people like Soros are incentivized to uncover government screwups, so we can do better next time. Really? Let me ask you, why was the situation terrible exactly? Because the pound was overvalued and exposed to the same predatory behaviour Soros demonstrated? Oh, right...
SixSigma 12y ago
I think a £3.3b loss is hardly devastating. GDP in 1994 was £693bn Govt. spending was £4,687 per capita and this loss was about £54 per capita. Not zero but hardly devastating. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_1994_UK_total http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_1994_UK_total £3.3b in 1994 would be £6bn today. As a comparison, in 1999 Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold before the market moved up, the equivalent of a £9b loss, £13b in today's money. He did this to give the banks an under the radar bailout by manipulating the markets. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/...
- zacinbusiness 12y ago
  It's less about the total loss of money and more about the valuation of the currency. The mid-nineties saw the pound drop even further in value and it's only recently begun to grow stronger again.
  - btbuilder 12y ago
    Not sure I agree that it has been 20 years of straight recovery. In the late 2000s it was 2:1 with USD for a time.
- pja 12y ago
  As a comparison, in 1999 Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold before the market moved up, the equivalent of a £9b loss, £13b in today's money. He did this to give the banks an under the radar bailout by manipulating the markets. Gold doesn't pay interest, whereas the cash raised from the gold sale was used to buy (mostly) long term US treasuries to replace the gold in the BoE's asset portfolio. These have performed very well as an investment over the intervening years (look at, eg the BTTRX fund for a rough equivalent in the private sector) so the net loss is much smaller than you'd think.

Most (or at least some) of the politicians likely acted in good faith, believing they were doing the best for their country. Soros knew he would leave the people devastated but didn't care.

CocaKoala 12y ago

That may be true, but I don't think it's relevant. The politicians still made bad decisions that led the country to ruin; you can say they didn't mean it, but that doesn't make it not their fault, nor does it mean it wouldn't have happened if Soros hadn't shorted the pound. And to rephrase the second sentence: Soros knew that the bad policy decisions of the politicians would leave the people devastated, but didn't care. Again, I'm not convinced that's relevant; Soros didn't make the situation, he just profited by it. That doesn't make it his fault.

edanm 12y ago

I agree with CocaKola that this isn't relevant - I'd vote against having people acting in good faith, if the end result is getting screwed. As to your other point, this is how markets are supposed to work. Soros in effect helped show the incompetency of the government, which was a net good. People got screwed, certainly, but the situation was terrible and no one did anything about it until Soros stepped in. You could say that he is similar to Snowden or other whistleblowers in many ways. They through the government into chaos, likely endangered a lot of the economy and possibly lives, and they did it all because exposing the bad things the government was doing was more important. Of course, I'm not arguing that it's the same, as the whistleblowers do this despite the fact that it ruins their lives, and Soros did it to make money. What I am saying is, it's great we've setup a system where people like Soros are incentivized to uncover government screwups, so we can do better next time.

mercurial 12y ago
> As to your other point, this is how markets are supposed to work. Soros in effect helped show the incompetency of the government, which was a net good. People got screwed, certainly, but the situation was terrible and no one did anything about it until Soros stepped in. > You could say that he is similar to Snowden or other whistleblowers in many ways. They through the government into chaos, likely endangered a lot of the economy and possibly lives, and they did it all because exposing the bad things the government was doing was more important. Grotesque. Soros certainly didn't give a damn about the public good. A better comparison would be somebody blowing a nuclear power plant to make a point that the security measures are insufficient. Should we congratulate terrorists next, because we can "do better" next time in terms of security? > Of course, I'm not arguing that it's the same, as the whistleblowers do this despite the fact that it ruins their lives, and Soros did it to make money. What I am saying is, it's great we've setup a system where people like Soros are incentivized to uncover government screwups, so we can do better next time. Really? Let me ask you, why was the situation terrible exactly? Because the pound was overvalued and exposed to the same predatory behaviour Soros demonstrated? Oh, right...

SixSigma 12y ago

I think a £3.3b loss is hardly devastating. GDP in 1994 was £693bn Govt. spending was £4,687 per capita and this loss was about £54 per capita. Not zero but hardly devastating. http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_1994_UK_total http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/piechart_1994_UK_total £3.3b in 1994 would be £6bn today. As a comparison, in 1999 Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold before the market moved up, the equivalent of a £9b loss, £13b in today's money. He did this to give the banks an under the radar bailout by manipulating the markets. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/revealed-why-gordon-brown-sold-britains-gold-at-a-knock-down-price/ http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100018367/...

zacinbusiness 12y ago
It's less about the total loss of money and more about the valuation of the currency. The mid-nineties saw the pound drop even further in value and it's only recently begun to grow stronger again.
- btbuilder 12y ago
  Not sure I agree that it has been 20 years of straight recovery. In the late 2000s it was 2:1 with USD for a time.
pja 12y ago
As a comparison, in 1999 Gordon Brown sold the UK's gold before the market moved up, the equivalent of a £9b loss, £13b in today's money. He did this to give the banks an under the radar bailout by manipulating the markets. Gold doesn't pay interest, whereas the cash raised from the gold sale was used to buy (mostly) long term US treasuries to replace the gold in the BoE's asset portfolio. These have performed very well as an investment over the intervening years (look at, eg the BTTRX fund for a rough equivalent in the private sector) so the net loss is much smaller than you'd think.