The Ethics of Profiting from Others' Failure

[sun rise]

Capitalism has an ethical system. In it, betting on whether a company will survive or not is ethical. Insider trading, for example is not. Those are the rules of the 'game'.

I'm not concerned with the game, but in people being so rich and powerful that they, in effect, bend the rules so their odds of winning are better than mine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How so?

Buy-and-hold strategies are based on the idea that companies will, in general, do what they set out to do: do things that create a surplus, which gets translated into dividends and increases in value of the company.

This is especially true when we're talking about investing in the entire market: on average, the value of raw materials in play tomorrow is more than the value of raw materials today, and the more value-added things we do with those raw materials as inputs, the more value has been added.

OTOH, random fluctuations of stocks from day to day are really just, well, random. They aren't really tied to any intrinsic value of anything, and over a single day, they're as likely to go up as go down.

(Unless you're talking about insider trading, which I assume you aren't)

 

[PureX]

It's ethical.
Why?
Nothing is being misrepresented.

Consider the analogy of insurance.
One can profit from another's death.
Yet all concerned agree to what they're doing.

Consider the analogy of pedophilia, where the adult 'profits' from the loss of the child's innocence even as the child agrees to it.

I fail to see how "honest representation" justifies exploitation. Can you explain this to me?

 

[Revoltingest]

Consider the analogy of pedophilia, where the adult 'profits' from the loss of the child's innocence even as the child agrees to it.

I fail to see how "honest representation" justifies exploitation. Can you explain this to me?

Terrible analogy.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.

 

[PureX]

Terrible analogy.
Children cannot consent to sex with adults.

Who consents to being economically exploited? I mean I know we all AGREE to it, because we don't know any better. But no one is willingly and knowingly consenting to it? Sure it's a terrible analogy to those who want to justify humans exploiting other humans for their own selfish gain. But the real, stark, truth of it is just as ugly, painful, and unnecessary as child molestation is.

 

[Revoltingest]

Who consents to being economically exploited?

Those who are legally capable of agreeing to the relationship.

I mean I know we all AGREE to it, because we don't know any better. But no one is willingly and knowingly consenting to it?

I'm not a victim. In all my economic relationships
(not including with government, of course) I willingly consent.

Sure it's a terrible analogy to those who want to justify humans exploiting other humans for their own selfish gain. But the real, stark, truth of it is just as ugly, painful, and unnecessary as child molestation is.

Yours is a terrible analogy because children cannot consent to sex with adults.
But adults can consent to buying & selling stocks & options.

Are you really equating the evil of child rape with adults' stock transactions?

 

[PureX]

Those who are legally capable of agreeing to the relationship.

I'm not a victim. In all my economic relationships
(not including with government, of course) I willingly consent.

Yours is a terrible analogy because children cannot consent to sex with adults.
But adults can consent to buying & selling stocks & options.

Are you really equating the evil of child rape with adults' stock transactions?

We aren't talking about stock options, we're talking about gaining from the failure of others. We're talking about exploiting their failure for our own gain. No one willingly and knowingly consents to this. And yet everyone agrees to it because they don't know what else to do in a system that treats greed like a virtue, and their suffering like an acceptable business expense.

 

[Revoltingest]

We aren't talking about stock options, we're talking about gaining from the failure of others. We're talking about exploiting their failure for our own gain. No one willingly and knowingly consents to this. And yet everyone agrees to it because they don't know what else to do in a system that treats greed like a virtue, and their suffering like an acceptable business expense.

The OP is about profiting on options & commitments to buy/sell stock.
Anyone issuing, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in stocks knows
that this is how that market functions. This is all voluntary.

It seems that your disdain for greed is affecting your
judgement of its being voluntary relationships.

 

[PureX]

The OP is about profiting on options & commitments to buy/sell stock.

The thread title is: "
The Ethics of Profiting from Others' Failure. The stock thing was just an example.

Anyone issuing, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in stocks knows
that this is how that market functions. This is all voluntary.

They are not the only people being effected.

It seems that your disdain for greed is affecting your
judgement of its being voluntary relationships.

And your desire to ignore the damage done by systemic greed, and to justify it as a virtue, is blinding you to the reality of other people's suffering.

 

[Revoltingest]

The thread title is: "
The Ethics of Profiting from Others' Failure. The stock thing was just an example.
They are not the only people being effected.
And your desire to ignore the damage done by systemic greed, and to justify it as a virtue, is blinding you to the reality of other people's suffering.

I'm neither ignoring nor justifying damage done by greed.
I addressed the OP's example because it was the one presented.
No harm done there.
I oppose fraud, theft, slavery, & any other crime.

But greed....it's a motive like love, competition, altruism,
ambition, empathy, etc. Any motive can serve good or bad.
What matters is what one does.

 

[BSM1]

The thread title is: "
The Ethics of Profiting from Others' Failure. The stock thing was just an example.
They are not the only people being effected.
And your desire to ignore the damage done by systemic greed, and to justify it as a virtue, is blinding you to the reality of other people's suffering.

Define greed,

 

[PureX]

I'm neither ignoring nor justifying damage done by greed.
I addressed the OP's example because it was the one presented.
No harm done there.
I oppose fraud, theft, slavery, & any other crime.

Crimes rarely reflect the ugly reality of greed, as it's the most greedy among us, in our culture, that determine criminality.

But greed....it's a motive like love, competition, altruism,
ambition, empathy, etc. Any motive can serve good or bad.
What matters is what one does.

Greed is the desire to gain as much as possible for oneself at the expense of anyone and everyone else. It is never a motive that serves the good. And it is not a motive that can be satiated (so it has no inherent limit). Like all capitalists, you confuse and conflate greed with ambition, so as to justify the greed.

 

[PureX]

Define greed,

Greed is the desire to gain as much for oneself as possible, at the expense of anyone or everyone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

Crimes rarely reflect the ugly reality of greed, as it's the most greedy among us, in our culture, that determine criminality.
Greed is the desire to gain as much as possible for oneself at the expense of anyone and everyone else. It is never a motive that serves the good. And it is not a motive that can be satiated (so it has no inherent limit). Like all capitalists, you confuse and conflate greed with ambition, so as to justify the greed.

We disagree about greed's role & definition.

 

[PureX]

We disagree about greed's role & definition.

I'm sure you do.

 

[BSM1]

Greed is the desire to gain as much for oneself as possible, at the expense of anyone or everyone else.

Can you give one specific example...

 

[PureX]

Can you give one specific example...

Here is the difference between greed and ambition. A greedy employee wants to get paid as much as he can for doing as little as he can get away with. And there is no limit to how much he will take, or how little he will give in return.

An ambitious employee wants to get paid as much as he can by doing as much as he can for the company he works for. He figures that the more he's willing to put into the employment exchange, the more he will get back from it. Because that's how the business "exchange" is supposed to work.

The greedy employer will try to get as much from his employees as he can, while paying them as little as he can get away with, in return. Whereas the ambitious employer will be willing to share some of the profits gained from the labor of his employees to both reward and incentivize them to do even more for the business enterprise.

Unlike the greedy man, who seeks only to exploit the other side for his own gain in every business exchange, whether he's employee or employer, the ambition man seeks to increase the value received on both sides of the exchange, because that's what "exchange" means, and what commerce is for.

Do you see the difference?

Now ask yourself which of these attitudes is the more common definition of a "business exchange" in the United States. And why. Sadly, I think you will have to conclude that in the vast majority of instances, the goal is to take as much as you can get form the exchange, while giving as little as you can get away with, in return. This is what Americans think is "good business", when in fact, all it is, is exploitation fueled by greed.

 

[BSM1]

Here is the difference between greed and ambition. A greedy employee wants to get paid as much as he can for doing as little as he can get away with. And there is no limit to how much he will take, or how little he will give in return.

And ambitious employee wants to get paid as much as he can by doing as much as he can for the company he works for. He figures that the more he's willing to put into the employment exchange, the more he will get back from it. Because that's how the business "exchange" is supposed to work.

The greedy employer will try to get as much from his employees as he can, while paying them as little as he can get away with, in return. Whereas the ambitious employer will be willing to share some of the profits gained from the labor of his employees to both reward and incentivize them to do even more for the business enterprise.

Unlike the greedy man, who seeks only to exploit the other side for his own gain in every business exchange, whether he's employee or employer, the ambition man seeks to increase the value received on both sides of the exchange, because that what "exchange" means; whether he's employee or employer.

Do you see the difference?

Now ask yourself which of these attitudes is the more common definition of a "business exchange" in the United States. And why. Sadly, I think you will have to conclude that in the vast majority of instances, the goal is to take as much as you can get form the exchange, while giving as little as you can get away with, in return. This is what Americans think is "good business", when in fact, all it is, is exploitation fueled by greed.

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I just wanted you to name one greedy person you know, and describe why you consider this specific person greedy.

 

[PureX]

I'm sorry, perhaps you misunderstood my question. I just wanted you to name one greedy person you know, and describe why you consider this specific person greedy.

Why would you ask such a foolish question? What could possibly be gained by my answering it? Who has not succumbed to greed at one time or another? Especially in a culture that treats as if it were a virtue.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Do you think that making such bets is ethical? I'm of a mixed mind.

I found this documentary useful about the ethics of wealth.

Regards Tony