4 ms·

The fact that a single entity acts on behalf of tens of millions of ordinary people does not detract from the fact that it is a single entity that can exert tha

The fact that a single entity acts on behalf of tens of millions of ordinary people does not detract from the fact that it is a single entity that can exert that kind of influence. If that single entity abuses that power, then smaller entities loose money and the (extra) earnings largely end up in the pockets of the entity itself.

tnovelli 17y ago
Interesting how so much money/power/responsibility is diluted and reconcentrated over and over in mutual funds, pensions, insurance companies, governments, etc. -- much like those subprime mortgage tranches. And we call this capitalism?!
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  How is voluntarily paying people to manage your money for you anti-capitalist?
  - tnovelli 17y ago
    Everyone is passing the buck... what's the connection between your investment and a productive enterprise somewhere? A long chain of financial games. Decisions are based on statistics and third-hand information, not on the merits of the end investment. Result: a crapload of bad investments and an unstable economy. [Edit:] "Capitalism" gets blamed for this mess caused by the dilution of responsibility, which sounds pretty socialistic to me. You might call it "emergent socialism".
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      The connection between my investment and productive enterprise is very simple. Vanguard (the people who manage my money) transfer my investment to an enterprise they believe is productive but undervalued.
BearOfNH 17y ago
a single entity that can exert that kind of influence In the US such an entity has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of his clients, and can be held liable for failing to act properly. Bernie Madoff is a prime example. Regrettably, The Authorities often look the other way. Ken Lewis decided (well, was pushed) to go ahead and buy Merrill Lynch even though he knew he was screwing his Bank Of America shareholders. Still, it was a violation of the law and he should have been prosecuted. So while it's wrong to screw clients for personal benefit, evidently it's not wrong to screw clients for the government's benefit. (I don't know what that's called, but it's not "capitalism".)
- spc476 17y ago
  He was "pushed" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302461.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04... ) by the US government, the same one that upholds the law that he has now violated. Damned if he did (prosecuted for violating the law), damned if he didn't (forcibly removed from his company by the US Government).

tnovelli 17y ago

Interesting how so much money/power/responsibility is diluted and reconcentrated over and over in mutual funds, pensions, insurance companies, governments, etc. -- much like those subprime mortgage tranches. And we call this capitalism?!

yummyfajitas 17y ago
How is voluntarily paying people to manage your money for you anti-capitalist?
- tnovelli 17y ago
  Everyone is passing the buck... what's the connection between your investment and a productive enterprise somewhere? A long chain of financial games. Decisions are based on statistics and third-hand information, not on the merits of the end investment. Result: a crapload of bad investments and an unstable economy. [Edit:] "Capitalism" gets blamed for this mess caused by the dilution of responsibility, which sounds pretty socialistic to me. You might call it "emergent socialism".
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The connection between my investment and productive enterprise is very simple. Vanguard (the people who manage my money) transfer my investment to an enterprise they believe is productive but undervalued.

BearOfNH 17y ago

a single entity that can exert that kind of influence In the US such an entity has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of his clients, and can be held liable for failing to act properly. Bernie Madoff is a prime example. Regrettably, The Authorities often look the other way. Ken Lewis decided (well, was pushed) to go ahead and buy Merrill Lynch even though he knew he was screwing his Bank Of America shareholders. Still, it was a violation of the law and he should have been prosecuted. So while it's wrong to screw clients for personal benefit, evidently it's not wrong to screw clients for the government's benefit. (I don't know what that's called, but it's not "capitalism".)

spc476 17y ago
He was "pushed" ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/23/AR2009042302461.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04... ) by the US government, the same one that upholds the law that he has now violated. Damned if he did (prosecuted for violating the law), damned if he didn't (forcibly removed from his company by the US Government).