Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on February 24, 2014, 11:12:20 pm
-
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/02/i-crashed-a-wall-street-secret-society.html
-
The oppressed always find a way to express themselves.
-
I guess this shouldn't be a surprise from an industry that recruits young financiers on their ability to eat omelets cooked from their own vomit, but it's still pretty depressing.
-
Reminds me of Jon Ronson's account of Bohemian Grove, really.
-
(http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/trickle-down.jpg?w=696)
-
To me, it sounded like all the other secret societies. Men gather around to tell rude jokes, drink, wear stupid hats and act silly where nobody can see them. I suppose that's some way to unwind after a stressful day. Not every secret society is like this (I've heard Freemasons are much more scholarly in nature), but plenty of them are.
Some people, especially those not raised that way from the start, can't stay serious and focused all the time (and some, like me, have exactly the opposite problem :) ). On the other hand, social status restricts them, they can't be seen drinking and telling insensitive jokes in public, because they're supposed to be too dignified for that. We're not talking celebrities there, we're talking serious businessmen, true high class. It is generally expected that their idea of entertainment would be fancy balls and gentle, educated conversation.
Now, while "old money" British aristocrats or people otherwise descended from aristocracy may conform to this expectations (since they kind of started it, back in the old times), there are many "normal people" who rose to elites on their own. As such, they weren't raised going to balls and horse races, but on discos and parties with friends. Since they can no longer do that in public, they form secret societies in which they can indulge in idiocy and forget, for a while, that fate of the world rests on their shoulders. They most likely are not detached from reality at work, but after it, there's nothing wrong with departing reality for a while. Being rich and important isn't as easy as most people think, especially if you're in a "respectable" position and not a celebrity.
-
You have a pretty distorted view of the behaviour a ruling class indulges in outside of the view of the peasants. I get it, you want aristocrats to be noble, outstanding citizens, bound by a code of noblesse oblige, but that's a fantasy. It's not real. It wasn't real back when aristocracy was an actual thing, it isn't real now. The sooner you come to realize that, the better.
-
Now, while "old money" British aristocrats or people otherwise descended from aristocracy may conform to this expectations (since they kind of started it, back in the old times), there are many "normal people" who rose to elites on their own. As such, they weren't raised going to balls and horse races, but on discos and parties with friends. Since they can no longer do that in public, they form secret societies in which they can indulge in idiocy and forget, for a while, that fate of the world rests on their shoulders. They most likely are not detached from reality at work, but after it, there's nothing wrong with departing reality for a while. Being rich and important isn't as easy as most people think, especially if you're in a "respectable" position and not a celebrity.
No, these people are pretty detached from reality at work. We have enough insider reports on the trading culture that led to the global financial collapse to understand that.
-
Unbridled capitalism at work. What's shocking is not that these people behave this way; rather, it's shocking that everyone else puts up with it.
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
-
Tl;dr:
No, it was just a group of friends who came together to roast each other in a benign and self-deprecating manner. Nothing to see here. But the extent of their worry wasn’t made clear until Ross offered himself up as a source for future stories in exchange for my cooperation.
I wasn’t going to be bribed off my story, but I understood their panic. Here, after all, was a group that included many of the executives whose firms had collectively wrecked the global economy in 2008 and 2009. And they were laughing off the entire disaster in private, as if it were a long-forgotten lark. (Or worse, sing about it — one of the last skits of the night was a self-congratulatory parody of ABBA’s “Dancing Queen,” called “Bailout King.”) These were activities that amounted to a gigantic middle finger to Main Street and that, if made public, could end careers and damage very public reputations.
Pretty damn disgusting.
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
Bridled capatilism, obviously.
The whole point of our current governments is to allow life, liberty, and the persuit of happines to it's citizens. At some point, the liberties of one person become so great that he then gains the liberty to inhibit the liberty of others (wall-mart underpaying their workers, shameless self enrichment that crashes the economy, that sort off thing). There are ways to prevent this, and they have been employed with different measures of succes in various countries.
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
A capitalist system in which the tax code is fair and progressive, and the wealthy do not have disproportionate access to the political and legal systems.
-
That's like saying the solution for crimes is better humans.
What I mean is that the capitalism we have is already "bridled". However, the system is such that rich men will always find themselves lobbying for the Rulemakers of the world to get the rules work for their benefit. This is just how it always plays out. And the world is such a place that the rich can always store their cash in some corner of the world where governments "unfortunately" can't grab it. Globalization has been a boon for the rich like nothing else, for they treat countries as restaurants where they go and eat, go away if the price is too high or the food unpleasant. We hear that all the time "Raise the taxes for the rich and the wealth flees for other nations", etc.
The capitalist system is unbridled by nature, by fiat. It will always degenerate into this sort of monster.
And it will only get worse and worse given the power of automation and artificial intelligence.
-
But therein lies the issue; the reason why the rich are able to successfully influence the political, legal, and economic systems to their favour and the detriment of others is because, despite the others being a significantly larger portion of the population with a significantly larger share of the votes (and economic power), the others are content to do little but complain or, worse, tacitly or actively support the broken system because of the foolish notion that they too will rise to that level of prosperity and influence... which is an outright myth. This is popularly known as the American Dream: where people lie to each other and themselves about the chances of their improving their economic status significantly over time. And, with the exception of rare anecdotes, it doesn't happen.
Many, many economists repeatedly point out that the tax codes of most major democracies are filled with ludicrous loopholes, tax expenditures (popularly known as "credits" or "relief"), and modifications to what are fundamentally pretty robust systems - proportional increases in payable tax rates based on level of income. That system was, incidentally, favoured quite heavily by even Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" proponent himself.
Moreover, most countries - the US being a notable exception due to the nonsense of the Citizens United case - are now erecting legal barriers to the disproportionate access of the wealthy to the political systems - namely, that in many places there is now a cap on the amount that an individual can contribute to a political party or officer, and an outright ban on corporate/union donations. These are systems that, if they were entrenched in law at the level of constitutions - "equal before the eyes of the law" - would carry far more force.
The point overwhelmingly being that the status quo does not have to be maintained; there are simple mechanisms to alter it. So again; it's not shocking that people behave like the article points out in a system of essentially unbridled capitalism - what's shocking is that everyone else continues to put up with it.
-
You know why communist movement never really took off in the US? Because workers there do not think of themselves as oppressed working class, but as temporarily impoverished millionaires. :) There's a lot of truth in this statement. IMO, "unbridled" capitalism is not a problem in itself. The problem is that government is not separated from the business matters, which means the wealthy can afford to "cheat" by altering the political environment to favor them. This can stifle the competition and significantly tilt the scales in favor of the ruling class.
You have a pretty distorted view of the behaviour a ruling class indulges in outside of the view of the peasants. I get it, you want aristocrats to be noble, outstanding citizens, bound by a code of noblesse oblige, but that's a fantasy. It's not real. It wasn't real back when aristocracy was an actual thing, it isn't real now. The sooner you come to realize that, the better.
Well, I do realize it isn't real, at least for the majority of the ruling class. Aristocrats like that are hard to come by these days, which is annoying me to no end. I strive to be such a man, bound my "noblesse oblige" a noble gentleman and an examplary citizen. Can't say I always succeed, but I have been taught this by my family, and I fully intend to follow this. It was never even a question for me, that's just how a man should be. I know at least one person who does the same, and she had a similar upbringing (and her lineage is even better than mine :)). This is what an aristocrat, or even just a descendant without an actual title, should strive to be. The vast majority does not, and I am very displeased with them because of that. But don't tell me that the minority who actually believes in honor, nobility and gentlemanly behavior does not exist, because both I and my parents are among this minority, as well as my friend (and her family probably too; it does take a certain upbringing). And as my grandparents told me, this kind of people used to be a lot more common, even if not a majority of the ruling class. I don't know to what extent (not having lived in those times), but I'm pretty convinced it was indeed the case.[/rant]
Still, you missed my entire point. It wasn't about gentlemanly behavior, or even basic human decency. No, those are not required. There are, however, certain social norms that ruling class abides by. If you're rich and important, you dress in suits and tuxedos, drive expensive cars and at least try to seem intelligent and educated. I meant this sort of norms and standards expected from the ruling class. The president can't drive a rusty Zaporozhec around unless he's deliberately trying to make a political statement. Nor can a banker debauch in a bar without press making a ruckus. You won't see a CEO stay in a roadside motel. The balls and races were more of a rhetorical a metaphor than anything else. The point was, since ruling class people can't just go to some bar and order some beer, they have to book a hotel and make it all a fancy, pretentious, secret ceremony. Ultimately, it was no different from what happens in college fraternities, only those were grown men doing it. All the shock came from all those supposedly dignified figures acting like students, but this is just human nature. If this was anyone else (say, some middle class office drones), there won't be a problem. Their greed and lack of foresight, no doubt influenced by the financial bonanza that preceded the crisis, is another matter, and a problem with capitalism in general, regardless of personal flaws of people who run the banks.
Still, I do think that this shows that the ruling class is made up of people unsuited for the task. But then, it's hardly my only problem with the ruling elites. Believe me, in Poland, the supposed elites hardly even look the part (for example, some came in business suits to an evening charity ball. I looked better than a good part of them on my high school prom).[/another rant]
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
Eat the rich. There's only one thing that they're good for.
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
Eat the rich. There's only one thing that they're good for.
First a reference to Locke/Rousseau, now a play off Swift? I am impressed, sir.
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
Eat the rich. There's only one thing that they're good for.
First a reference to Locke/Rousseau, now a play off Swift? I am impressed, sir.
It's probably actually a reference to this song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eat_the_Rich_%28Aerosmith_song%29):
eat the rich
there's only one thing that they're good for
eat the rich
take one bite now - come back for more
eat the rich
I gotta get this off my chest
eat the rich
take one bite now, spit out the rest
-
OK, an Aerosmith reference is marginally less impressive.
-
Yeah, just a tad. :p
-
aerosmith: the jonathan swift of their time
-
What's the alternative?
I have heard of none.
Eat the rich. There's only one thing that they're good for.
Get rich and don't become these ****ers in drag.
The one thing i've come to understand about money is that, the more you save, the more opportunities you give yourself. The other is use it or lose it. Using money mostly goes after doing what you need and want with it. The other part of using it is investing. Losing it goes after mindless spending and overtly not having a goal with your money; lack of ambition and planning.
The problem with rich people is the fact that they do have so much money and they need to use it, and more overly, want to use it (people don't get rich without any vision). Despite laws, there will always be rich people to sway things their way through manipulation of anybody. Now, never abolish the rich. That would be stupid. I would never care for such a thing because at it's most base abolishing the rich would mean caps on how much money you are allowed to save and make. Making money legitimately was never illegal, nor is saving it, or using it. However, how you make and use it does matter; this is a separate topic though.
In college i was in a government class at college (part of the required courses). One thing the instructor did was ask the students about how they like being poor and in debt, and whether or not the rich should give to them. Unfortunately a bunch of students raised their hands. Then he countered with playing a video about a successful CEO who didn't have a problem writing his own pay checks based on the continued success of him being a CEO of a thriving business, and the CEO stated that it was never illegal to make or save any amount of money.
How many students raised their hands was disturbing. One may argue that the students are in a bad financial situation taking out loans, getting a job, and renting a place all for school. But, how bad are they really off if they could do all of this in 2004. Compared to the people who maybe get half a meal a day or something like that and are out of work trying to get another job, tooth and nail everyday; these are the people I would figure who really need the hand out.
-
I think you took him way too seriously. Nobody's saying the rich should be "abolished".
-
i only claimed that they should be vivisected so we can see how they work. after that idk, i dont have the money to put them back together so i guess they can just be used for meat.
-
i only claimed that they should be vivisected so we can see how they work. after that idk, i dont have the money to put them back together so i guess they can just be used for meat.
Heh. Soylent Green.
-
no, no, no. dont hide your cannibalism. display it proudly!
-
That's like saying the solution for crimes is better humans.
What I mean is that the capitalism we have is already "bridled". However, the system is such that rich men will always find themselves lobbying for the Rulemakers of the world to get the rules work for their benefit. This is just how it always plays out. And the world is such a place that the rich can always store their cash in some corner of the world where governments "unfortunately" can't grab it. Globalization has been a boon for the rich like nothing else, for they treat countries as restaurants where they go and eat, go away if the price is too high or the food unpleasant. We hear that all the time "Raise the taxes for the rich and the wealth flees for other nations", etc.
The capitalist system is unbridled by nature, by fiat. It will always degenerate into this sort of monster.
And it will only get worse and worse given the power of automation and artificial intelligence.
1. Capital controls. When they were in place prior to 1970 globalization actually promoted development. Capitalism need not follow the Washington Consensus.
2. LAND VALUE TAX. Appreciation of real estate has become the single largest de-facto source of capital gains. So tax that appreciation away. The rich can move their money offshore but they can't move their land.
Many, many economists repeatedly point out that the tax codes of most major democracies are filled with ludicrous loopholes, tax expenditures (popularly known as "credits" or "relief"), and modifications to what are fundamentally pretty robust systems - proportional increases in payable tax rates based on level of income. That system was, incidentally, favoured quite heavily by even Adam Smith, the "invisible hand" proponent himself.
The modern idea of progressive taxation pretty much BEGAN with Adam Smith. Noone ever actually reads his stuff - he wasn't anti-government but anti-rentier. And his "invisible hand" quote was about the potential harmful effects of what we now call globalization being defeated by the home bias of capitalists towards their native countries- one prediction he was obviously wrong about. The modern use of that term was a complete fabrication made up by later conservative economists trying to turn him to the exact opposite of what he really was.
-
I think you took him way too seriously. Nobody's saying the rich should be "abolished".
I probably did.
-
The rich are of course vital for the economy, their investments advance humanity a lot. They just have to be properly regulated so that common man benefits from it, too, and the inequality doesnt get too big. Anyone who seriously wants to "abolish the rich" is deep inside communist kookoo land. They tried that in my country for 40 years and it was a huge failure.
-
Neophytes, huh? I was expecting them to be called Neonates (http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Neonate)..