We've been diagnosed...

[cjppjc]

Re: We've been diagnosed...

Doubtless such a powerful human emotion plays some role. But I suspect jealousy played a much larger role before the unholy Trinity of politicians, Central Bankers and the financial sector blew up the real economies of one country after another.

Doubtless indeed. We are all the results of our reactions. So much can be learned when we notice our reactions. Sometimes our reactions encompass many emotions. I think in this case jealousy is one of those emotions. Anger, dismay, even hatred. All seem to be evident. At least for me they are. I think my choice of the word naive has upset some people. Some people may not feel jealousy. I still think it would be naive to think jealousy does not play a part. If something is wrong does it matter that jealousy play a part?

[reallife]

Re: We've been diagnosed...

The so-called financial elite are very mistaken in their assumptions. They will not continue to enjoy their prosperity at the expense of the rest of us. Let's see: How do you spell 'guillotine'? GUILLOTINE

If I was a Wallstreeter, I would get out NOW! Not sure where I would go?? :rolleyes:

[oddlots]

Re: We've been diagnosed...

Doubtless indeed. We are all the results of our reactions. So much can be learned when we notice our reactions. Sometimes our reactions encompass many emotions. I think in this case jealousy is one of those emotions. Anger, dismay, even hatred. All seem to be evident. At least for me they are. I think my choice of the word naive has upset some people. Some people may not feel jealousy. I still think it would be naive to think jealousy does not play a part. If something is wrong does it matter that jealousy play a part?

It's funny (and embarassing) that I started out sort of agreeing with you ... and then the bile returned...

There is a high level of disappointing behaviour that I can tolerate. I trade a little and basically assume the worst of everyone at every link and take full responsibility for my judgements. I run my own business and do not rely on people to act ethically, though I'd say people do enough to make the whole thing viable and rewarding in a way that feeds my optimism.

But generally, I have low expectations of people.

I would like to think that I am not easily angered... but there's just a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty that sets me off. I just cannot believe that anyone inside the belly of this beast (the big pillars of banking, real estate, and insurance) could not see how unsustainable the whole thing was. Just taking the main ring event in the circus as an example: how could anyone of any intelligence believe that - in aggregate - we would get rich selling each other our houses. They are the least productive asset out there! (As Buffet would say, it's consumption dummy.) The very fact that this seemed the prevalent view was what stirred me to reading economics back in in 2003.

We are all first and foremost naive empiricists. I had a long conversation with my parents a week or so ago about the practicalities of settling their estate. Their generation has benefited from the hedge and leverage offered by real estate. Some solace from the Sargasso of the 70s I suppose. I have friends in my peers who are - IMO - extremely over-exposed to real estate and I am not strident or sanctimonious in my views when we, rarely, talk about investments. In fact, among friends, I avoid all such discussions.

But there is something about having someone - who we are constantly reminded is the brightest of the brightest bulbs out there - telling an elected body that "real estate has always gone up" that sets my blood boiling. They cannot a) be doing god's work b) be the best and the brightest and c) be saying these things at the same time.

I'd really like to believe that it's the yawning credibility / honesty gap here that set's me off...

[chr5648]

Re: We've been diagnosed...

It's funny (and embarassing) that I started out sort of agreeing with you ... and then the bile returned...

There is a high level of disappointing behaviour that I can tolerate. I trade a little and basically assume the worst of everyone at every link and take full responsibility for my judgements. I run my own business and do not rely on people to act ethically, though I'd say people do enough to make the whole thing viable and rewarding in a way that feeds my optimism.

But generally, I have low expectations of people.

I would like to think that I am not easily angered... but there's just a certain kind of intellectual dishonesty that sets me off. I just cannot believe that anyone inside the belly of this beast (the big pillars of banking, real estate, and insurance) could not see how unsustainable the whole thing was. Just taking the main ring event in the circus as an example: how could anyone of any intelligence believe that - in aggregate - we would get rich selling each other our houses. They are the least productive asset out there! (As Buffet would say, it's consumption dummy.) The very fact that this seemed the prevalent view was what stirred me to reading economics back in in 2003.

We are all first and foremost naive empiricists. I had a long conversation with my parents a week or so ago about the practicalities of settling their estate. Their generation has benefited from the hedge and leverage offered by real estate. Some solace from the Sargasso of the 70s I suppose. I have friends in my peers who are - IMO - extremely over-exposed to real estate and I am not strident or sanctimonious in my views when we, rarely, talk about investments. In fact, among friends, I avoid all such discussions.

But there is something about having someone - who we are constantly reminded is the brightest of the brightest bulbs out there - telling an elected body that "real estate has always gone up" that sets my blood boiling. They cannot a) be doing god's work b) be the best and the brightest and c) be saying these things at the same time.

I'd really like to believe that it's the yawning credibility / honesty gap here that set's me off...

I got out of b-school 2 years ago, I came to a conclusion about the types of people who go into the finance/marketing field and it comes down to this:

They are incompetent at literature/grammar/english/creativity so going into the humanities/liberal arts is not an option.

They are incompetent at math/logic/abstract concepts so going into mathematical/logic/abstract/engineering/sciences/FACTS is also not an option.

So what better field to go into than where you can wear a suit and create the ILLUSION of intelligence. Then call yourself 'talented' with no factual evidence to back it up. Then lie and manipulate because its "EASY" to do. It seems to me its the misfits of society that go into finance at least from my observations at school.

Kind of funny how they teach ethics in business school - you would think that ethics is something that is intrinsic in and of itself, it just is, not something that can be debated, it is either ethical or it isn't. Not to the business folks they can rationalize and come up with their own definitions of ethics, and change them as they please.

BTW- I did accounting but I was in the same 'school' as these folks.

[cjppjc]

Re: We've been diagnosed...

It's funny (and embarassing) that I started out sort of agreeing with you ... and then the bile returned...

Funny yes, instructional also. Most people don't like to think how easy they can me moved by their reactions. They are above such things, when if fact we spend our entire lives in this way.