Jump to content

Documentary: Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (BBC)


tombgrt
 Share

Recommended Posts

If you have an extra hour of free time:

 

 

Documentary about people preying on the weak.

 

 

This is really, really bad. I cringed during the whole thing. I'm feeling sorry for them, it's sickening really. Also pretty sure most believers live in constant mental anguish without even realizing it. Good job society!

 

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

natural selection at it's best! It is funny how we say, well yeah natural selection filtered a certain gene! that is natural! Or you see a coyote eating the insides of a zebra that is still a live, and people are like 'ssssh don't interfere, it's nature!' . But somehow when some idiot is too lazy to work but rather gets good feelings or easy money and someone else takes advantage of that, we suddenly feel the need to interfere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

natural selection at it's best! It is funny how we say, well yeah natural selection filtered a certain gene! that is natural! Or you see a coyote eating the insides of a zebra that is still a live, and people are like 'ssssh don't interfere, it's nature!' . But somehow when some idiot is too lazy to work but rather gets good feelings or easy money and someone else takes advantage of that, we suddenly feel the need to interfere.

 

I'm quite certain the opposite is true: Most people can't stand someone getting physically abused yet think it's perfecly fine when people get screwed over mentally and/or emotionally. Generally it's also a lot easier to get away with say verbal abuse than physical abuse anyway. It's easier to turn a blind eye to the effects the former brings.

 

Why would the existence of natural selection rule out at least some protection for those with lesser defensive mechanisms against charlatans? Why would lower intelligence and social standing give you less right to get support and help compared to those that are psychically ill? Both are handicaps that society should care for if we want to evolve to something more than the idiots that we are today.

I'm not saying they shouldn't carry the consequences of their actions, but some protection against the crooks in that documentary doesn't seem out of place to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

natural selection at it's best! It is funny how we say, well yeah natural selection filtered a certain gene! that is natural! Or you see a coyote eating the insides of a zebra that is still a live, and people are like 'ssssh don't interfere, it's nature!' . But somehow when some idiot is too lazy to work but rather gets good feelings or easy money and someone else takes advantage of that, we suddenly feel the need to interfere.

 

The same could be said for stock market regulation trying to protect outsiders from insiders. Do you think that is stupid as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, yes. And it is not like the rules are well enforced anyway... They caught cohen practically redhanded and he still seems to get away with it. Just seems like a waste of energy and government money to chase after them.

 

You want to play the stock market game? That is part of it. Don't like it? Buy an index fund. Allthough they could make a rule where insiders would have to make their trades public within a day or so. That way they cannot dump large amounts to unsuspecting outsiders. I think it is better to have too little regulation then too much regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

natural selection at it's best! It is funny how we say, well yeah natural selection filtered a certain gene! that is natural! Or you see a coyote eating the insides of a zebra that is still a live, and people are like 'ssssh don't interfere, it's nature!' . But somehow when some idiot is too lazy to work but rather gets good feelings or easy money and someone else takes advantage of that, we suddenly feel the need to interfere.

 

Are you an investment banker from the 90s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, yes. And it is not like the rules are well enforced anyway... They caught cohen practically redhanded and he still seems to get away with it. Just seems like a waste of energy and government money to chase after them.

 

You want to play the stock market game? That is part of it. Don't like it? Buy an index fund. Allthough they could make a rule where insiders would have to make their trades public within a day or so. That way they cannot dump large amounts to unsuspecting outsiders. I think it is better to have too little regulation then too much regulation.

 

You say that when we are still feeling the effects from financial under-regulation that almost brought down our entire financial system that would have thrown the civilized world back into the stone age?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, yes. And it is not like the rules are well enforced anyway... They caught cohen practically redhanded and he still seems to get away with it. Just seems like a waste of energy and government money to chase after them.

 

You want to play the stock market game? That is part of it. Don't like it? Buy an index fund. Allthough they could make a rule where insiders would have to make their trades public within a day or so. That way they cannot dump large amounts to unsuspecting outsiders. I think it is better to have too little regulation then too much regulation.

 

You say that when we are still feeling the effects from financial under-regulation that almost brought down our entire financial system that would have thrown the civilized world back into the stone age?

the government was ultimately at fault here. If bank deposits weren't insured, and banking was deregulated, then you would not have seen this mess in the first place.

 

Then people say, but but bank runs??? In the 1929 crash, only about 2% of total deposits were taken out in the so called infamous bank run.

 

Now you had government saying, don't worry if it goes to shit we will catch you, oh and everyone has to have a house!

 

Corporations are suposed to be greedy, that is the foundation of capitalism. Either you have no regulation or good regulation. But I prefer no regulation myself. I think a lot of regulation is the result of corporations scaremongering and trying to brain wash the people that regulation is good. When in the end large corporations are the ones who gain the most from regulation because it creates large barriers of entry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, yes. And it is not like the rules are well enforced anyway... They caught cohen practically redhanded and he still seems to get away with it. Just seems like a waste of energy and government money to chase after them.

 

You want to play the stock market game? That is part of it. Don't like it? Buy an index fund. Allthough they could make a rule where insiders would have to make their trades public within a day or so. That way they cannot dump large amounts to unsuspecting outsiders. I think it is better to have too little regulation then too much regulation.

 

You say that when we are still feeling the effects from financial under-regulation that almost brought down our entire financial system that would have thrown the civilized world back into the stone age?

 

Under-regulation?  :o  Can you think of 1 or 2 industries that are more regulated/controlled/screwed with than housing and banking? Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, SEC, the Fed, the CFPB, the FDIC, Fannie/Freddie securitizing (and guaranteeing) huge swaths of mortgages, FHFA, arbitrary bailouts, etc. Those are just off the top of my head. But then you have all of the distortions caused by the tax code which allows for mortgage deductions/no capital gains/etc. And those are just federal- then you have entities within each state like the NYDFS, 'ambitious' attorney generals, etc. There are regulators that literally have offices IN the banks. How can anyone say with a straight face that there was or is too little regulation? After researching the industry, I'm honestly astounded that it can function at all. To put the blame on the small bit of freedom left is a real perversion IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1. Banks have been anything but under regulated. Poorly regulated? Yes, but not under regulated.

 

The issue with regulation as it is practiced nowadays is, we have very specific targeted regulation each time we see a problem. Eventually we end up with a monstrosity which can be a "moat" of its own.

 

It also goes hand in hand with the political structure which seems to reward politicians  who want to "protect" people from their own stupidity. You can never ever regulate stupidity away. Its a human right.

 

Regulation needs to be simple and straightforward.....kind of like.."you go to jail if you cheat people or lie on your financial reports". "you can't lever up beyond a point if you are a bank and no, we don't use complicated, ultra stupid and frankly randomly-derived-finger-in-the-air, BASEL risk adjusted weighting to calculate your leverage, we do simple Assets/Equity from what you report".

 

I was new in this country when the crisis hit, but I never understood the term "predatory lending". I had heard about "dead-beat borrowers" and "stupid lenders", but I was surprised to hear that in this country and in this digital age you could be swindled by someone lending you money. I guess I am not looking hard enough, but I would love to have these predatory lenders lend me money without my knowledge.

 

The simple concept of "buyer beware" is systematically being flushed down the toilet and then we are surprised when we see stupidity around us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...