The Wall Street crash: A failure of thinking

15 Responses to “The Wall Street crash: A failure of thinking”

1. cvj on September 24th, 2008 9:39 am

   The ‘Wall Street Crash’ also disproves this piece of dogma…

   “Great nations were not built on good intentions. They were built on business sense. Real change in Pinoy society will never be achieved through the “sacrifice” of altruistic “heroes”. True change will be driven by people who find no shame in expecting a buck for their trouble.” - Benign0

   …unless by ‘change’, you also mean change for the worse. Society needs to impose limits on those “who find no shame in expecting a buck for their trouble”.

2. cocoy on September 24th, 2008 10:12 am

   What’s happening here is what we’ve all learned from the Great Depression— that government should act when it is called to act and to stay its hand any other time. Government acts as referee.

   So i’d wager that in this case, the US Government is doing its job. It is bringing stability to the market.

   And no, i do not dispute that there was market exuberance.

   What’s wrong is when we forget to investigate or prosecute those behind this exuberance in the market place. did they break any laws?

   Yes, the Federal Reserve has done an unprecedented thing. Had they not acted the way they did would surely hurt more people and those people are going to be victims because they’re ordinary people and not just in the States but across the world.

   The FBI, AP is reporting, is investigating Lehman, AIG, Fannie, etc. If there is cause, they should be prosecuted. If the law isn’t enough, new laws need to be written.

   Free Market is alive and well, imho. Fortune passes everywhere. The Buffett table for instance made money.

3. benign0 on September 24th, 2008 10:14 am

   cvj, that brilliant snippet you quoted (which by the way can be found here in living colour) was more about a comparison between those who expect a buck for their trouble vs. “heroes” whose only achievement for their trouble is a recognition that they “sacrificed”. As a source of prosperity, which of the two do you think accounts for more results.

   This article however describes the perversion of an otherwise sensible way of life.

4. cvj on September 24th, 2008 3:44 pm

   Benign0, you cannot just scamper away (like a rat abandoning a sinking ship) from an ideology that you have been advocating. It’s not that these Wall Street investment bankers were ‘not thinking’. They were thinking alright, but only for themselves as they were driven by an economic philosophy that says greed is good. You keep talking about results. Well, the Financial Crisis is one such result of the selfish mindset that you’ve been advocating. Now these very same bankers are asking for some altruism from the American taxpayer (courtesy of their government).

5. benign0 on September 24th, 2008 5:29 pm

   Read the snippet again, cvj:

   Real change in Pinoy society will never be achieved through the “sacrifice” of altruistic “heroes”. True change will be driven by people who find no shame in expecting a buck for their trouble.

   You highlighted only the last sentence. But read the WHOLE paragraph. As I said earlier: It’s a comparison between those who expect a buck for their trouble vs. “heroes” whose only achievement for their trouble is a recognition that they “sacrificed”.

   What makes you think I “scamper” away from anything for that matter as I remain consistent across everything I assert?

   Just because one expects a buck for one’s trouble does not necessarily make one greedy. Greed comes about when the buck expected exceeds the value of the trouble. If you haven’t noticed, that is the essence of the above article.

6. cvj on September 24th, 2008 6:19 pm

   Benign0, the pursuit of ones selfish interest without regard for others [aka ‘altruism’] is the defining characteristic of greed. Your “brilliant snippet” explicitly excluded altruism in favor of expecting a buck as the key to national greatness. Contrary to your claim that the Crash resulted from a perversion of the way of life you advocate, it is actually a consequence of its faithful practice. These Wall Street Investment Bankers have simply been following your advice (your belated admonition against greed above being an afterthought.)

   The error of those who advocate unbridled capitalism [aka laissez faire] is to believe that if economic actors just pursue their own selfish interests, then economic prosperity will automatically follow (which is actually a perversion of Adam Smith’s message). The market crash shows us otherwise. The United States actually learned that lesson before (in 1929) but forgot it again so the lesson has to be repeated.

7. benign0 on September 24th, 2008 7:28 pm

   Benign0, the pursuit of ones selfish interest without regard for others [aka ‘altruism’] is the defining characteristic of greed.

   Firstly, you might wanna check first the definition of “altruism” before you continue carrying on (unless of course you meant to cover only the phrase “regard for others” in your “[aka ‘altruism]’ qualification).

   Second, I said, there is no shame in expecting a buck for your trouble. Where exactly do you se me advocate the pursuit of the buck at the expense of others and in an un-ethical manner?

8. cvj on September 24th, 2008 8:04 pm

   Unless of course you meant to cover only the phrase “regard for others” in your “[aka ‘altruism]’ qualification - Benign0

   Yes that’s what i meant ‘regard for others’ = ‘altruism’.

   Second, I said, there is no shame in expecting a buck for your trouble. Where exactly do you see me advocate the pursuit of the buck at the expense of others and in an un-ethical manner? - Benign0

   Your rejection of altruism to temper self-interest paves the way for unethical behavior. It would have been fine if you just left it at there is no shame in expecting a buck for your trouble (full stop). The thing is,
   you emphasized your rejection of altruism. Since altruism is ‘regard for others’, it follows that your message translates to ‘there is no shame in expecting a buck for your trouble without regard for others’.

   To make a nation great, you need both altruism and self-interest. Rejecting altruism would result in an ‘every man for himself’ type of situation which is no way to build a society. Problem is, you oversimplified.

9. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 4:19 am

   cvj, what makes you think I “reject” altruism?

   Explain please.

10. Bencard on September 25th, 2008 5:38 am

    i see your point, benigno. there’s no shame in expecting a just compensation for one’s services. it’s not greed. it’s justice. greed is taking or coveting more than one deserves, or more than the reasonable value of his investment (goods or services) plus a just profit.

    “altruism” like love is an ideal, not a command. it is given in the exercise of free will. it is not imposed nor mandated.

11. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 7:47 am

    greed is taking or coveting more than one deserves, or more than the reasonable value of his investment (goods or services) plus a just profit

    One of the tenets of a free market that is often forgotten is that it works only when all parties involved in a commercial transaction are fully informed of the nature of said transaction.

    If a seller acquired an item for 10c, markets it for $1 and a buyer agrees to buy it for 90c, everyone is happy.

    Regulation should be (a) strongly inclined towards ensuring that commercial transactions are transparent (i.e. the full nature of the transaction is evident to all parties involved), and (b) less inclined towards limiting them.

    The whole idea there is that parties involved in the transaction are left to be individually accountable for their behaviour (whether they are selling or buying) under the premise that regulation has created an environment in which:

    (1) information surrounding commercial transactions is equally accessible to all; and,

    (2) rules and processes are clear enough to ensure that fraudulent, misleading, and covert behaviour (i.e. things that run counter to transparency and what is ethical) can be identified and prosecuted.

    Maturity of a market/society around the above two items provides a framework where the concept of “greed” becomes less ambiguous and less cvj-esque (i.e. less of a tool for pandering to populist sentiment) in the way it is discussed.

12. cvj on September 25th, 2008 11:45 am

    cvj, what makes you think I “reject” altruism?

    Explain please. - Benign0

    What is there to explain? Your statement is explicit in its negation of altruism in favor of self-interest (making a buck).

    Unlike Bencard, i don’t see altruism as an ‘ideal’. On the contrary, it is a basic requirement for a civilized society. This is because society works on the basis of reciprocity which is a combination of competition and cooperation. How can you have cooperation without altruism i.e. making sacrifices for the sake of others?

13. benign0 on September 25th, 2008 7:58 pm

    What is there to explain? Your statement is explicit in its negation of altruism in favor of self-interest (making a buck).

    But of course it is, cvj; though not until you are able to explain exactly, why you think that statement of mine is “explicit in its negation of altruism in favor of self-interest”.

14. TonGuE-tWisTeD on September 29th, 2008 1:50 pm

    benign0 may have failed to clearly deliver what he really meant based on how he wrote it. While it is clearly prejudiced (use of “never”) against altruistic heroes effecting change, as cvj was pointing out, he later appears to qualify, though not explicitly, when he asked where he expressed such rejection.

    I believe adding the word “alone” after “heroes” in the snippet will settle the argument.

15. pumpy on October 27th, 2008 6:20 am

    In which case, given the fact that derivatives and credit swaps are part of secular lifestyles, then skeptics should have no problems tolerating theology. *8-)

Leave a Reply