RAFO Messageboard: I think your society's divisions are irreparable, too, and it's pretty freaking scary. by Legolas

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

I think your society's divisions are irreparable, too, and it's pretty freaking scary. Legolas Send a noteboard - 22/10/2021 09:55:47 AM

View original postBy the way, I find it even more offensive, in a way, that the concept of insider trading as a crime even exists. Because investing is not a game. It is not gambling and should not be. It is the purchasing of ownership in a business in order to give that business more money with which to operate, enabling it to produce goods and services better or more cheaply. In order to make the best investment possible, it seems only sensible that one should know as much as possible about where your money is going. But if you obtain any real knowledge of the company, it is now illegal to buy a stake in it. It is illegal for an employee of a company to believe in a new product or development so much that he tells his friends and encourages them to buy in. Seriously, WTF? Insider trading is not fraud, it's just smart investing. It's like kicking people out of the casino for counting cards at blackjack. That's not wrong! It's just being REALLY good at blackjack! But in both cases, it seems there is some mentality that getting a lot of money by using your brain instead of blind luck, must somehow be immoral (well, of course, in the case of the casino, they don't want to lose money). The mentality seems to be that insider trading is akin to looking at the other player's hand of cards. But that's in games. In the real world, with real money and real people's livelihoods on the line, transactions are not supposed to be "games". What's the difference between insider trading and legally required product labeling? In each case, the purchaser is finding out exactly and precisely what they are buying. Why is it okay for the owner of a company (ie a stockholder) to keep secrets about what he is selling, but not a soft-drink manufacturer?

You seem to be missing the key point: what's illegal is not to do your research before buying stocks, but to buy them based on information that is confidential, not publicly available and hence impossible for investors without inside connections to have, no matter how well they did their research.

So if the employee in your example wants to promote his company and get everyone to invest in it, because he thinks it's going to be really successful with some new project, that's fine - as long as he waits until after the company has made the reason for his excitement publicly known, so that any other investor has the opportunity to take the same investment decision.

View original postAnd this is what it comes to on the show. Who gets in trouble depends on the agenda on the people calling the shots. What one side sees as crimes that threaten society, and must be eradicated, are, to the other, merely arbitrary lines being crossed that a case can be made for not drawing in the first place. One side sees a witness who can testify her boss asked her to make a store look bad, so they can hopefully force him to testify against the vengeful billionaire who wanted it done, and the other side sees a multiple times criminal, whose actions in the country prove why they want crackdowns on her sort in the first place. One side sees an entertaining rich guy who embodies their idle fantasies, and does a lot of good, and the side sees cheater against sacrosanct laws that protect against wealth imbalance who embodies their worst nightmares. One side sees authority being abused and the people who are supposed to safeguard society acting out their own issues on people who comes within their power, and the other side thinks that person who came into their power was a bad guy and while it might be "wrong" what happened to him, they are not going to weep any tears, and certainly not swing an axe at the very system that protects us all. The first side would retort that it does NOT protect "us", just an entrenched institution that is not focused on the real threat. And that very discussion applies to two different cases on the show. To one side, the dead prison guard is the abuser, and the prison system his flawed institution, and to the other side, Chuck Rhodes is the abuser and the federal prosecutor's office is the institution exceeding its remit. Honestly, it reminds of the bit in "Crossroads of Twilight" where Egwene is thinking that if Rand has somehow transgressed against Aes Sedai, he will have to be punished, especially because of who he is, because as the Dragon Reborn, he is too dangerous to be allowed to violate peoples' rights. And he ESPECIALLY has to be punished for transgressing against Aes Sedai, because if he can harm Aes Sedai, he can harm anyone. You can flip that thinking for either party in "Billions". Chuck Rhodes cannot be allowed to carry out his vendetta against Bobby Axelrod, because if he can break the rules and crush this billionaire, who is on a first name basis with Steve Tisch and Lars Ulrich and the Secretary of the Treasury, no one is safe from Rhodes' abuse of his prosecutorial powers. On the other hand, no criminal can possibly do the harm Bobby Axelrod can do with a seven figure cash bribe that is a smaller portion of his net worth than a dime does to normal people, so how can you say any extreme is too far in shutting him down for good?

I don't watch the show and didn't comment on all the previous paragraphs, but yeah, that kind of divide exists on many topics, sometimes it seems like on almost everything in the US these days.

View original postThe divide is too great. You wonder how people can vote for a clown like Donald Trump or a senile fossil like Joe Biden? Because the alternative is the other side getting into power and then your side is in the crosshairs. Yesterday's hero is now a criminal. Today's victor was on the ropes yesterday. And neither side is wrong in their fears. No one wanted Donald Trump for president, they did not want Hillary Clinton, and they did not want the empowerment of people who seek to destroy their way of life and everything that's important to them. No one wanted Joe Biden, they wanted to stop Donald Trump from enabling people who would do the same to them.

It's sadly not true that no one wanted Donald Trump for president - otherwise he wouldn't have won the Republican primary. But yeah, in the general election, you're certainly right that plenty of people voted for Trump despite knowing how terrible he was as a candidate and would be as a president. That being said, I think you're overlooking the tendency in most people (though not you, I don't think) to rationalize their choices post-hoc and to shift their views to reduce cognitive dissonance - in other words, overlooking how many Trump voters who initially had to hold their noses to vote for him, have later come to terms with their choice, even though Trump gave them little or no reason to actually change their earlier assessment of him. When the dominant opinion in a party shifts, whether that's the whole wokeness thing on the Democratic side or the whole worshipping an egocentric imbecile thing on the Republican side, it's easier for many voters to go along with that, at least partially, than to stick with their original position and get increasingly annoyed by their party moving away from them.

But yeah, I don't know where this is going to end, but I'm increasingly pessimistic about the future of the US as a country. And that means it's becoming increasingly urgent for the rest of the world to get to a point where we can survive the loss of the US as a global player, without falling right into China's hands as a result.

Reply to message

The show "Billions" has me thinking that our society's divisions are irreparable. Cannoli - 21/10/2021 10:58:29 PM 312 Views

I am sick to death of movies and TV shows that are allegories on the evils of capitalism. damookster - 22/10/2021 04:49:05 AM 91 Views

But not books right?

Roland00 - 22/10/2021 05:23:01 PM 75 Views

I think your society's divisions are irreparable, too, and it's pretty freaking scary. Legolas - 22/10/2021 09:55:47 AM 96 Views

Yep (public) Corporation vs Sole Proprietorship have different rules for a reason. Roland00 - 22/10/2021 05:09:33 PM 70 Views

One point in particular Cannoli - 23/10/2021 05:55:44 PM 94 Views

That seems like a pretty extreme parallel, but sure, I guess?

Legolas - 23/10/2021 09:41:23 PM 71 Views

Also Cannoli - 23/10/2021 06:45:48 PM 91 Views

Re: Also Legolas - 23/10/2021 09:55:29 PM 84 Views

I hope Europe can be that future. The Shrike - 24/10/2021 02:53:53 PM 104 Views

I hope so too... but I'm not necessarily holding my breath.

Legolas - 25/10/2021 06:41:33 PM 76 Views

Back to Messageboard

Post New Thread

Help

Stats

Rules

Reply to Message

Subject

Formatting

Smiley Codes

Body

<quote id="308131">
<quote id="308125">By the way, I find it even more offensive, in a way, that the concept of insider trading as a crime even exists. Because investing is not a game. It is not gambling and should not be.  It is the purchasing of ownership in a business in order to give that business more money with which to operate, enabling it to produce goods and services better or more cheaply.  In order to make the best investment possible, it seems only sensible that one should know as much as possible about where your money is going.  But if you obtain any real knowledge of the company, it is now illegal to buy a stake in it.  It is illegal for an employee of a company to believe in a new product or development so much that he tells his friends and encourages them to buy in.  Seriously, WTF? Insider trading is not fraud, it's just smart investing.  It's like kicking people out of the casino for counting cards at blackjack.  That's not wrong!  It's just being REALLY good at blackjack!  But in both cases, it seems there is some mentality that getting a lot of money by using your brain instead of blind luck, must somehow be immoral (well, of course, in the case of the casino, they don't want to lose money).  The mentality seems to be that insider trading is akin to looking at the other player's hand of cards.  But that's in games.  In the real world, with real money and real people's livelihoods on the line, transactions are not supposed to be "games".  What's the difference between insider trading and legally required product labeling?  In each case, the purchaser is finding out exactly and precisely what they are buying.  Why is it okay for the owner of a company (ie a stockholder) to keep secrets about what he is selling, but not a soft-drink manufacturer?  </quote>
You seem to be missing the key point: what's illegal is not to do your research before buying stocks, but to buy them based on information that is confidential, not publicly available and hence *impossible* for investors without inside connections to have, no matter how well they did their research.

A world in which insider trading is allowed or tolerated, means a world in which rich people only get richer and it's even tougher for outsiders to make their fortune, as the people who already have the good connections can profit earlier and more from new opportunities than outsiders, not because they're smarter but just because their buddies tipped them off.  
<quote id="308125">And this is what it comes to on the show.  Who gets in trouble depends on the agenda on the people calling the shots.  What one side sees as crimes that threaten society, and must be eradicated, are, to the other, merely arbitrary lines being crossed that a case can be made for not drawing in the first place.  One side sees a witness who can testify her boss asked her to make a store look bad, so they can hopefully force him to testify against the vengeful billionaire who wanted it done, and the other side sees a multiple times criminal, whose actions in the country prove why they want crackdowns on her sort in the first place.  One side sees an entertaining rich guy who embodies their idle fantasies, and does a lot of good, and the side sees cheater against sacrosanct laws that protect against wealth imbalance who embodies their worst nightmares.   One side sees authority being abused and the people who are supposed to safeguard society acting out their own issues on people who comes within their power, and the other side thinks that person who came into their power was a bad guy and while it might be "wrong" what happened to him, they are not going to weep any tears, and certainly not swing an axe at the very system that protects us all.  The first side would retort that it does NOT protect "us", just an entrenched institution that is not focused on the real threat.  And that very discussion applies to two different cases on the show.  To one side, the dead prison guard is the abuser, and the prison system his flawed institution, and to the other side, Chuck Rhodes is the abuser and the federal prosecutor's office is the institution exceeding its remit.  Honestly, it reminds of the bit in "Crossroads of Twilight" where Egwene is thinking that if Rand has somehow transgressed against Aes Sedai, he will have to be punished, especially because of who he is, because as the Dragon Reborn, he is too dangerous to be allowed to violate peoples' rights.  And he ESPECIALLY has to be punished for transgressing against <i>Aes Sedai</i>, because if he can harm Aes Sedai, he can harm anyone.  You can flip that thinking for either party in "Billions".  Chuck Rhodes cannot be allowed to carry out his vendetta against Bobby Axelrod, because if he can break the rules and crush this billionaire, who is on a first name basis with Steve Tisch and Lars Ulrich and the Secretary of the Treasury, no one is safe from Rhodes' abuse of his prosecutorial powers.  On the other hand, no criminal can possibly do the harm Bobby Axelrod can do with a seven figure cash bribe that is a smaller portion of his net worth than a dime does to normal people, so how can you say any extreme is too far in shutting him down for good?  </quote>
I don't watch the show and didn't comment on all the previous paragraphs, but yeah, that kind of divide exists on many topics, sometimes it seems like on almost everything in the US these days. 
<quote id="308125">The divide is too great.  You wonder how people can vote for a clown like Donald Trump or a senile fossil like Joe Biden?  Because the alternative is the other side getting into power and then your side is in the crosshairs.  Yesterday's hero is now a criminal.  Today's victor was on the ropes yesterday.  And neither side is wrong in their fears.  No one wanted Donald Trump for president, they did not want Hillary Clinton, and they did not want the empowerment of people who seek to destroy their way of life and everything that's important to them.  No one wanted Joe Biden, they wanted to stop Donald Trump from enabling people who would do the same to them.</quote>
It's sadly not true that no one wanted Donald Trump for president - otherwise he wouldn't have won the Republican primary. But yeah, in the general election, you're certainly right that plenty of people voted for Trump despite knowing how terrible he was as a candidate and would be as a president. That being said, I think you're overlooking the tendency in most people (though not you, I don't think) to rationalize their choices post-hoc and to shift their views to reduce cognitive dissonance - in other words, overlooking how many Trump voters who initially had to hold their noses to vote for him, have later come to terms with their choice, even though Trump gave them little or no reason to actually change their earlier assessment of him. When the dominant opinion in a party shifts, whether that's the whole wokeness thing on the Democratic side or the whole worshipping an egocentric imbecile thing on the Republican side, it's easier for many voters to go along with that, at least partially, than to stick with their original position and get increasingly annoyed by their party moving away from them.

Link title

Link url

Send notification emails?

Username

Password