Hedge Funds Are Evil

[erranta]

<br />Hedge funds can go bust, and the taxpayer doesn't have to prop them up. Not evil.<br />

Pure evil and why the wealthiest satanic familly 'names' in the World are involved in them - bigtime!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

" Pump & dump (shitty word)

The field of hedge funds rose to prominence during the second half of the previous century. Sprouting from obscure roots, the clump of saplings gradually grew into a thicket of flappers that came to dominate the upthrows in the financial arena.

In the quest of quick profits, hedge funds had a penchant for piling up leverage on a massive scale. By going out on a limb, the outfits came to wield an enormous amount of influence on the marketplace.

From the 1990s onward, the punters began to play a dominant role in causing or compounding one bombshell after another in the arena."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Sourman]

Moral grounds ARE rational grounds.

Given how much money is going to be made, rather than sticking the local warlord at these poor sods, you could pay them or make them shareholders and get them to move that way.

Local despot is cheaper tho, so worthless unethical scumbags will use him.

What really worries me is that traditionally organizations with this much economic clout, were countries, and countries tend to have a strong national morality, and have to abide by some political inconveniences which limit the scope of their powers. Hedge funds with the same financial power as small countries have no such restraints, being driven by pure greed!

They seem to be on their way to behaving like de facto countries, they would only need to instigate a private security force to defend their investments and then what will we do?

These large hedge funds are having an enormous impact on world trade, but how far do we let them go?

[Injin]

Hedge funds can go bust, and the taxpayer doesn't have to prop them up. Not evil.

All the worlds serial killers can go bust, the ability to go bankrupt without help from the state is meaningless as far as the good or evil of actions taken go.

On your metric, buying toxic waste and feeding it to schoolkids would be fine - as long as you didn't buy too much and go wallop.

I'm guessing you've got a financial stake in this.

[acer]

What really worries me is that traditionally organizations with this much economic clout, were countries, and countries tend to have a strong national morality, and have to abide by some political inconveniences which limit the scope of their powers. Hedge funds with the same financial power as small countries have no such restraints, being driven by pure greed!

They seem to be on their way to behaving like de facto countries, they would only need to instigate a private security force to defend their investments and then what will we do?

These large hedge funds are having an enormous impact on world trade, but how far do we let them go?

I don't know if I'm right to, but I'm seeing similarities to the history of the East India Company here.

[okaycuckoo]

All the worlds serial killers can go bust, the ability to go bankrupt without help from the state is meaningless as far as the good or evil of actions taken go.

On your metric, buying toxic waste and feeding it to schoolkids would be fine - as long as you didn't buy too much and go wallop.

I'm guessing you've got a financial stake in this.

No, the ony stake is living in a country with the rule of law. Hedge funds are subject to that law, unlike big banks. If an African country lets hedgies run amok, that's a problem of rule of law in the African country - they should get themselves a democracy.

[Injin]

No, the ony stake is living in a country with the rule of law. Hedge funds are subject to that law, unlike big banks. If an African country lets hedgies run amok, that's a problem of rule of law in the African country - they should get themselves a democracy.

Absolute garbage.

Can you imagine saying to a rape victim "well, it's your own fault for not employing better policemen" ?

Do ****** off.

[A.steve]

You said pass a law to solve the problem and it's up[ to regulators to sort it. Which is the same as saying it's up to the police and parliament to end rapes. Completely removes the free will of people.

There's a big non sequitur. I claim that, especially where there may be different perspectives on what counts as ethical behaviour, the law represents the best representation of the will of the people. Where the law fails to represent the will of the people, the law needs to be changed - it is not appropriate to vilify others for behaving rationally in the context of corrupt or otherwise inappropriate laws.

If you invest in, say, an arms firm that is supply one side of a war - you are (partially) responsible for those who get killed.

if you invest in a company which has shit health and safety, you are responsible for any injuries which result. You can dodge this with the law but the morals are clear. If you pay for it, you make it happen and you therefore own anything that results (at least in part.)

I recognise that line of reasoning - but I do not agree. I feel quite strongly that the people who act are responsible for their actions. No-one, however, acts in a vacuum... and trying to draw black-and white lines of responsibility is misdirected. The arms suppliers are responsible for arming people - their own actions - whereas the people who do the people firing the weapons are responsible for the killing. I'm not trying to suggest that arming parties at war is responsible behaviour - but it is important to retain a sense of perspective if there is going to be any sort of meaningful ethical debate. To use hyperbole and suggest that the arms supplier is responsible for the acts of those supplied is to utterly undermine any attempt to hold them responsible for supplying - and farce ensues... which, of course, encourages future unethical behaviours.

Shame people are kinda hazy on what ethics are then, isn't it?

I don't think people are hazy on what ethics are. I think people have genuinely different perspectives which lead them to make different moral decisions. I also think that (all) people, especially when put under pressure, will tend to subconsciously bend interpretation of ethical boundaries. If we want to encourage ethical behaviour, we should look close to home rather than trying to identify a responsible minority who we can hold accountable without questioning our own behaviour... it's the height of hypocrisy.

[Injin]

There's a big non sequitur. I claim that, especially where there may be different perspectives on what counts as ethical behaviour, the law represents the best representation of the will of the people.

Illogical - the will of the people is what they are already doing. What people actually want to happen doesn't require a law.

There is no "eat cake" law, no "have sex" law etc etc

Where the law fails to represent the will of the people, the law needs to be changed - it is not appropriate to vilify others for behaving rationally in the context of corrupt or otherwise inappropriate laws.

Yes, it is.

Bad behaviour is bad behaviour, some guy with a funny hat on agreeing with it needing being punishing is irrelevent.

Making rape legal wont change the morality of it one bit.

I recognise that line of reasoning - but I do not agree. I feel quite strongly that the people who act are responsible for their actions. No-one, however, acts in a vacuum... and trying to draw black-and white lines of responsibility is misdirected. The arms suppliers are responsible for arming people - their own actions - whereas the people who do the people firing the weapons are responsible for the killing. I'm not trying to suggest that arming parties at war is responsible behaviour - but it is important to retain a sense of perspective if there is going to be any sort of meaningful ethical debate. To use hyperbole and suggest that the arms supplier is responsible for the acts of those supplied is to utterly undermine any attempt to hold them responsible for supplying - and farce ensues... which, of course, encourages future unethical behaviours.

Good job I didn't suggest any such thing then, eh?

I said if you pay for someone to do something you are partially responsible. Can't see a flaw in such a position - and if you can you haven't presented it here. Instead you focus on the practicality of bringing such people to account, which is irrelevent to it being right or wrong.

Here is something you can do though, personally - stop giving evil people your money.

I don't think people are hazy on what ethics are. I think people have genuinely different perspectives which lead them to make different moral decisions. I also think that (all) people, especially when put under pressure, will tend to subconsciously bend interpretation of ethical boundaries. If we want to encourage ethical behaviour, we should look close to home rather than trying to identify a responsible minority who we can hold accountable without questioning our own behaviour... it's the height of hypocrisy.

And this is ignoring the basic question based on the fact that ethics are hard to live up to.

Ethics are pretty simple in fact, we (collectively) just don't like being constrained much. Hence the ******** to try and break ethics itself.

Killing is wrong.

Paying someone money so they will kill in order to make more money is wrong.

Simple. Easy. Except for what it means for our personal relationships and personal behaviour. Much easier to ditch ethics then ditch a profit or a friend. Right?

[Laughing Gnome]

It's the old dilemma: a couple of villages without land titles sitting on 100,000 hectares of land they are not using vs. increasing global food production by x%.

Tricky on moral grounds but no contest on rational grounds.

If the land is not being used, it is because it is not viable.

If you have the clout to divert a portion of someone else's river, it might become so.

The price is payed downstream.

[A.steve]

Illogical - the will of the people is what they are already doing. What people actually want to happen doesn't require a law.

Frankly, your claim is a paradox - as such, I suggest, it demands you re-think.

Here is something you can do though, personally - stop giving evil people your money.

If your perception is that someone is 'evil' then - of course - you should not encourage them.

Ethics are pretty simple in fact, we (collectively) just don't like being constrained much. Hence the ******** to try and break ethics itself.

Killing is wrong.

I don't think ethics are simple. Personal ethics are straightforward - but anything beyond that requires that you see ethical issues from others' perspectives. That's easier said than done - unless, of course, you're supremely arrogant and assume your own perspective trumps everyone else's.

[Injin]

Frankly, your claim is a paradox - as such, I suggest, it demands you re-think.

Nope. Your claim was illogical - you claimed the will of the peopel was the law. it can't be as the law is what people are forced to do. if you have to force someone then by definition they do not want to. law therefore cannot be the will of the people.

If your perception is that someone is 'evil' then - of course - you should not encourage them.

Nothing to do with perception, all to do with actuality. Evil really is knocking around, it isn't a matter of "perception".

I don't think ethics are simple. Personal ethics are straightforward - but anything beyond that requires that you see ethical issues from others' perspectives. That's easier said than done - unless, of course, you're supremely arrogant and assume your own perspective trumps everyone else's.

Objective standards do indeed override everyones opinions - including ones own.

Subjectivism in ethics is just excuse making cowardice.

[ccc]

Evil really is knocking around, it isn't a matter of "perception".

Evil is illogical. There is no such thing. There cannot be.

THE END.

[Injin]

How is it that you have been tolerated on this forum for so long?

The tenuous charm of your Grassy Knollingtonisms wore off in 2006 and frankly this post is the final straw for me and should be for the moderators.

You are irrelevant, charmless and a waste of space. If you're trying to be funny, you're failing. If you're trying to be ironic or irreverent, it's gone on too long. You are simply a spammer.

Moderators, the post above clearly breaches posting guidelines.

Edit typos etc.

How does it break the posting guidelines?

[Ned Coates]

Evil is illogical. There is no such thing. There cannot be.

THE END.

Jamie Bulger. There's loads more examples of course, but google this baby boy for recent inputs on one of the murderers.

It should help you understand your current environment so that you can better address posts on these matters.

[ccc]

Jamie Bulger. There's loads more examples of course, but google this baby boy for recent inputs on one of the murderers.

It should help you understand your current environment so that you can better address posts on these matters.

Evil is a word made up to make people feel better about the horrendous things other people are capable of doing. It is as simple as that IMO.

[aussieboy]

How does it break the posting guidelines?

Racial vilification.

[Injin]

Racial vilification.

Removing all the grassy knollingtonisms all he said is that some jewish bankers like to be owed money.

Which is true.