[andrepd]

Anything man-made, as should be obvious.

Example: It isn't democracy doing that, just people. It isn't autocracy doing that, just people. It isn't socialism doing that, it's people. It isn't capitalism doing that, it's people.

Therefore democracy = dictatorship, and socialism = capitalism. It's all the same, it's all people in the end, so it's no matter.

Patently absurd.

[lazide]

If you replace ‘finance’ with another system, I guarantee you’ll end up with another disaster soon enough. The only way you get halfway decent stability in any human run system is to build in expectations of human corruption and add in methods for self interested (aka greedy) people to get payoffs by tackling said corruption.

The problem is that people are involved, and you’re not realizing what that means - people inherently are corrupt, self interested, short sighted, power hungry, etc.

[andrepd]

>If you replace ‘finance’ with another system, I guarantee you’ll end up with another disaster soon enough.

>The only way you get stability in any human run system is to build in expectations of human corruption and add in methods for self interested people to get payoffs.

So which is it? Systems don't matter, or we need to build better systems? x) It seems these two sentences directly contradict each other.

>you’re not realizing what that means - people inherently are corrupt, self interested, short sighted, power hungry, etc.

I'm pretty sure I've noticed this before, actually. Why the condescension? Precisely what I'm defending is that we need systems where the greedy and the powerful cannot run steamrollers over the weak.

[lazide]

Systems matter, 'finance' (whatever that even means here) isn't a single system. People matter, and if you whack specific individuals here (if you can find them), entirely different ones will spring into their place.

near as I can tell, these kinds of messes happen - period.

The reason for the condescension is you seem hell bent on assuming 1) there is such a better system that exists, or can exist, that doesn't make an even bigger mess, but don't seem interested in giving a pointer to it 2) that there were specific individual actors that 'did this' and can be identified, and that can be nailed down without new ones popping up in their places. Aka, there are specific bad guys who made this happen, and if they had been stopped, it would not have occurred.

Which near as I can tell, if they exist, even they didn't know they were those people at the time.

It's a never ending cycle that can be improved but not eliminated, and most of the improvement is after the mess has occurred.

If you go after the people involved with a purely punitive mindset like what you seem to be advocating, it also makes everyone hide everything they are doing everywhere even more (good or not, since they can't tell how it will turn out in the end and be retroactively judged), so it is even harder to figure out you've got a problem somewhere until you have an even bigger smoking crater. There were definitely people acting in bad faith and committing clearly criminal actions. There were also the majority of people along for the ride. There were also huge market forces, including all the normal folks signing up for insane mortgages.

Blaming it all on 'finance' is just silly.