He’s just going to get people killed. But that’s ok he doesn’t give a shit anyways, so it’s moot. What are a few thousand dead peasants when we could make big stock number go up?
He’s just going to get people killed. But that’s ok he doesn’t give a shit anyways, so it’s moot. What are a few thousand dead peasants when we could make big stock number go up?
Number 3 is interesting for me… The finance sector is pretty aware of the need to control stupid risk taking, and the don’t want another GFC, so I guess they’d (broadly) want to keep some of the regulation around that. What else is there? General bad acting and things like excessive fees? That also seems to be a risk driver, in the long term, as it leads to e.g. increased loan defaults… Where do you think the key problems would be?
Edit: whoops, this was supposed to be in reply to @r00ty@kbin.life
What makes you think big finance likes to keep regulation? Someone’s loss is another one’s profit. Some people become very very rich from financial crises.
Because market crashes are not good for anyone in the sector… Hence I think the regulations brought in via the FSB in response to the GFC were broadly accepted (though probably with varying degrees of willingness).