Rendered at 19:23:09 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
getpost 3 hours ago [-]
> "The point is, ladies and gentleman, that greed, for lack
of a better word, is good." ... few people know that these words are based
on an actual commencement speech delivered in 1986 at The speaker? Ivan Boesky, who would be convicted just eighteen months later in an insider trading scandal.
I did not know this! Thank you for posting!
DivingForGold 1 hours ago [-]
Further interesting facts gleaned from wikipedia;
Boesky was born to a Jewish family in Detroit. His family owned several delicatessens and taverns in the city. Although he lacked an undergraduate degree, he was admitted to Detroit College of Law (now Michigan State University College of Law) and graduated in 1965. In the 1980s, Boesky served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and at New York University's Graduate School of Business.
Time magazine ran a December 1, 1986, cover story about his "scam," dubbing him "Ivan the Terrible."[11]
Per a plea bargain, he received a prison sentence of 3+1⁄2 years and was fined US$100 million. Although he was released after serving only 20 months, he was permanently prohibited from working with securities. He served his sentence at Lompoc Federal Prison Camp near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Boesky smoked Marlboro cigarettes and lived till 87 yrs.
Boesky was also featured in Titans The Rise of Wall Street on Amazon Prime
parineum 2 hours ago [-]
The whole character and his role in pop culture I find very frustrating.
The guy is the antagonist in the movie so you're not supposed to like him and he's written that way. He's a strawman and his whole speech is how the real version of him would sound filtered through the ears of someone who disagreed with him.
So you end up with people holding him up as an example that disagree and agree with him but the both of those groups are choosing the sides of a caricature that doesn't understand the point he's trying to make. It's weird.
keiferski 2 hours ago [-]
It's the problem with most Oliver Stone movies, Scorsese movies, and many other directors: the premise of the film requires a charismatic antihero, and therefore the "bad guy" becomes cool and popular.
The directors always try to avoid this criticism by saying, "Well he goes to jail in the end," but I think it's a bit of a cop out.
I tend to agree with the idea that art should try to embody some moral values, which goes against a lot of contemporary thoughts on aesthetics. But I think it’s a basic fact that people look toward fictional characters as role models, directly or indirectly. Avoiding that responsibility is not good.
thephyber 38 minutes ago [-]
> I think it’s a basic fact that people look toward fictional characters as role models
I think it's closer to "monkey see, monkey do".
After the Fast and The Furious movies, young men would street race home from the movie.
After watching the movie The Program, young men laid down in the street at night hoping not to get hit by traffic (copying the risky stunt the characters in the movie did).
The art simply shows what is, not what should be.
The Sopranos was interesting because it showed a mob boss doing the typical mob boss things (dodging FBI surveillance, dealing with rival crime families and street thugs, organizing new business ventures, burying evidence deep in the woods / dumping in the river). But it also showed a man with momma issues, with panic attacks, processing (well mostly rejecting) therapy, a wife who spends too much, a son as dumb as a box of rocks, etc. It wasn't the broad morality of western societies, but it was approachable because the character was eminently human.
Similarly, Dexter was a serial murderer, but he had "a code" (to only murder other serial murderers). His code doesn't necessarily match up with the morals of you or I, but like any fiction, it allows you to suspect your disbelief and inhabit the moral choices / predicaments of the character for a few minutes / hours.
derektank 26 minutes ago [-]
> The directors always try to avoid this criticism by saying, "Well he goes to jail in the end," but I think it's a bit of a cop out
I don’t know which directors you’re referring to, but I doubt you receieved such a simplistic response from Scorcese. Worth reading him in his own words on this, below is what he said regarding Jordan Belfort’s character in The Wolf of Wall Street,
“That's something that I've always been attracted to and is interesting to me. Someone like Jordan or Jake Lamotta or Tommy, Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas, and people say well that type of person that sort but… I guess what that means is that they try to distance themselves from them. It's someone else it's not me but in actuality I feel it's not someone else, it's us. It's you and me and maybe if we'd been born under different circumstances, maybe we would have wound up making the same, exactly the same mistakes and choices and doing exactly the same things. I really think … when people say “that kind,” it’s not a matter of equalizing everyone and saying we're all responsible, I think it's a matter of facing and recognizing and acknowledging that part of us which is a part of our common humanity. And we have to deal with it.”
“He [Jordan Belfort] thought that he could bypass morality or surpass morality with a combination of money and drugs. I don't know maybe he still does, I really don't know. There's another way of answering the question; he was different from Madoff and Skilling in that they weren't crashing helicopters or throwing little people (or maybe they were but if they did they kept it pretty quiet) but in that sense Jordan's experiences are more entertaining and that brings you closer to him because you look at these guys and think this seems to be a lot of fun. Well, it doesn't just look that way they really did have a lot of fun. In fact that's really all they could do is have fun and more fun and more on top of that, until it wasn't so much fun anymore. But what they couldn't do was just be. They just couldn't face that. So the challenge is to show that honestly without tipping the scales into judgment and taking you outside of the world these characters and the particular ways that they live their lives which was to obliterate all obstacles, all troubles, all difficulties, by taking more drugs, more money.”
Over the last 10 minutes of Wall Street, the main character gets arrested, breaks down crying, gets punched in the face, and then goes to jail. The last scene has his father (driving the MC to jail) turn almost literally to the camera and tell the viewer which precise moral value he's being punished for not upholding. I don't know how much more embodied in the art the values could be.
The problem is that you have to include people's self-justifications to tell a meaningful story. If Gordon Gekko were an uncharismatic sleazeball who tells everyone "I'm greedy because the misery of others pleases me, haha!", the film wouldn't work as a criticism of Wall Street, because real Wall Street tycoons are usually charismatic and don't say such things in public.
yowayb 1 hours ago [-]
was going to say, Hollywood knows exactly what it's doing with these "bad guys"
bazoom42 50 minutes ago [-]
But is it the people who misunderstand the movie, or is it the movie which fails to make the point you think it should make?
It is a classical hollywood trope to preset a “bad guy” protagonist as cool, charming, and resourceful and with a glamorous life.
Hollywood know how to make you like a character and how to make you dislike one.
ghlaoop 2 hours ago [-]
Gekko is the lead character and therefore the protagonist. Antagonists are faceless bureaucrats and later his mentee.
The Corleone family is also who viewers identify with in The Godfather.
Contrast with an Eastwood western, where he is the good guy or a guy better than the rest or at least with consistent morals.
lapcat 2 hours ago [-]
Two problems:
1) Michael Douglas is extremely attractive and charismatic, so people like him even if they're not supposed to. Gekko seduces the viewer to the dark side like he seduced Bud Fox.
2) The movie never shows Gekko in jail, so you never see the true consequences.
paulpauper 2 hours ago [-]
Prison sentences were so short back then, plus parole, that it was arguably worth it. it worked for Boeseky, Milikin and others.
jgalt212 2 hours ago [-]
It only worked for Milken because he had so much money as to be bulletproof and could buy his reputation back.
thephyber 1 hours ago [-]
There's a disturbing number of people who watch movies like RoboCop and Starship Troopers and don't realize they are satire.
I have a running joke with my closest friends that we are in a post-satire world because real news today is frequently indistinguishable from satire from 10-20 years ago. Sometimes The Onion headlines just bleed into the monotony of the news cycle, but it's not because they are any less satirical.
dingaling911 3 hours ago [-]
I had two stints at a hedge fund, one a hedge fund supplier.
The fake self promotional bullshit is so tiring. I quit as a result of this. It's the same as big tech, not any different.
Jane Street SUPPOSEDLY follows a flat hierarchy which has less of these games. I'm not sure how true it is.
The way I think about it: you hire people who are literally self driven and then you constrain them for no reason just to make other people feel in control.
Or maybe I'm just not a good employee. My first job ever told me I'm a horrible employee.
honkostani 2 hours ago [-]
[dead]
tylerdane 5 hours ago [-]
"The same factors that allow leadership to
manifest itself through performance and
teamwork also allow it to promote goals
that lack a moral, ethical, legal, profitable,
or even rational basis."
thibsrn 1 hours ago [-]
Thank you for sharing, it is a really interesting read. It expands on the different approaches that try to explain individuals' behaviors in a group. It is always good when there is some variety on HN and we get a bit of social sciences !
Animats 42 minutes ago [-]
(2016), from the New York Fed, back during the Obama administration. Reading this, my first thought was amazement that this came out under Trump. It didn't.
This paper is mostly about risk associated with debt. That's the Fed's job, after all. The current AI bubble is more on the equity side, although, when it pops, we'll see who's been leveraging their equity positions with debt. Historically, up until the 1980s. corporate debt was supposed to be low-risk. If a company went bust, that usually took down the top executives, who were unlikely to get good jobs ever again.
As a result, the bond market was boring. Not much trading. Buy and hold.
Then came "high yield bonds" - debt instruments with high returns but a significant
risk. The concept was that a broad portfolio of high yield bonds became, statistically, a low-risk loan. Risk management and the Black-Sholes model became a major part of Wall Street activity. That's the background of the paper. The audience to which that paper is addressed knows that, so they only hint at it.
This tends to break down when there's some across the board change. The 2008 US housing crisis is the big modern example. Housing prices went down nationally. The assumption of many Wall Street risk management models was that the risk of independent debt instruments was largely uncorrelated. Sometimes, it's not. The Big Short (2015) is the movie version of this, and it explains all this in an entertaining way. (That's quite an achievement for Hollywood - making an entertaining movie about mortgage risk correlation. It's not about bad people. It's about bad risk models.)
That's the underlying basis of the culture problem. Once investors start accepting that some debt instruments will routinely go bust, perverse incentives appear. Then you get Milken, Boesky, LTCM, and Enron. (Not Madoff; Madoff was a straight Ponzi scheme.) The paper tries to tie this to financial culture.
That's not wrong. But it's not the basis of "postmodern capitalism".
All this is to some extent a result of tax policy. Interest received is taxed much more favorably than stock dividends. That encourages debt financing, equity to debt conversion, high-risk lending, and leveraged buyouts. ("Private equity" is mostly leveraged buyouts. Usually the private buyer doesn't have the funds for an all-cash deal.) The line between debt and equity has been blurred. Both are ways to pay for money, but with different tax treatment. There are instruments such as convertible bonds which combine aspects of debt and equity. This effect is so strong that the number of publicly traded companies in the US is down, while the number of tradable financial instruments is way up.
So, the paper is incomplete in that it fails to identify how tax policy increased Wall Street's appetite for risk.
I did not know this! Thank you for posting!
Boesky was born to a Jewish family in Detroit. His family owned several delicatessens and taverns in the city. Although he lacked an undergraduate degree, he was admitted to Detroit College of Law (now Michigan State University College of Law) and graduated in 1965. In the 1980s, Boesky served as an adjunct professor at Columbia University's Graduate School of Business and at New York University's Graduate School of Business.
Time magazine ran a December 1, 1986, cover story about his "scam," dubbing him "Ivan the Terrible."[11]
Per a plea bargain, he received a prison sentence of 3+1⁄2 years and was fined US$100 million. Although he was released after serving only 20 months, he was permanently prohibited from working with securities. He served his sentence at Lompoc Federal Prison Camp near Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
Boesky smoked Marlboro cigarettes and lived till 87 yrs.
Boesky was also featured in Titans The Rise of Wall Street on Amazon Prime
The guy is the antagonist in the movie so you're not supposed to like him and he's written that way. He's a strawman and his whole speech is how the real version of him would sound filtered through the ears of someone who disagreed with him.
So you end up with people holding him up as an example that disagree and agree with him but the both of those groups are choosing the sides of a caricature that doesn't understand the point he's trying to make. It's weird.
The directors always try to avoid this criticism by saying, "Well he goes to jail in the end," but I think it's a bit of a cop out.
I tend to agree with the idea that art should try to embody some moral values, which goes against a lot of contemporary thoughts on aesthetics. But I think it’s a basic fact that people look toward fictional characters as role models, directly or indirectly. Avoiding that responsibility is not good.
I think it's closer to "monkey see, monkey do".
After the Fast and The Furious movies, young men would street race home from the movie.
After watching the movie The Program, young men laid down in the street at night hoping not to get hit by traffic (copying the risky stunt the characters in the movie did).
The art simply shows what is, not what should be.
The Sopranos was interesting because it showed a mob boss doing the typical mob boss things (dodging FBI surveillance, dealing with rival crime families and street thugs, organizing new business ventures, burying evidence deep in the woods / dumping in the river). But it also showed a man with momma issues, with panic attacks, processing (well mostly rejecting) therapy, a wife who spends too much, a son as dumb as a box of rocks, etc. It wasn't the broad morality of western societies, but it was approachable because the character was eminently human.
Similarly, Dexter was a serial murderer, but he had "a code" (to only murder other serial murderers). His code doesn't necessarily match up with the morals of you or I, but like any fiction, it allows you to suspect your disbelief and inhabit the moral choices / predicaments of the character for a few minutes / hours.
I don’t know which directors you’re referring to, but I doubt you receieved such a simplistic response from Scorcese. Worth reading him in his own words on this, below is what he said regarding Jordan Belfort’s character in The Wolf of Wall Street,
“That's something that I've always been attracted to and is interesting to me. Someone like Jordan or Jake Lamotta or Tommy, Joe Pesci’s character in Goodfellas, and people say well that type of person that sort but… I guess what that means is that they try to distance themselves from them. It's someone else it's not me but in actuality I feel it's not someone else, it's us. It's you and me and maybe if we'd been born under different circumstances, maybe we would have wound up making the same, exactly the same mistakes and choices and doing exactly the same things. I really think … when people say “that kind,” it’s not a matter of equalizing everyone and saying we're all responsible, I think it's a matter of facing and recognizing and acknowledging that part of us which is a part of our common humanity. And we have to deal with it.”
“He [Jordan Belfort] thought that he could bypass morality or surpass morality with a combination of money and drugs. I don't know maybe he still does, I really don't know. There's another way of answering the question; he was different from Madoff and Skilling in that they weren't crashing helicopters or throwing little people (or maybe they were but if they did they kept it pretty quiet) but in that sense Jordan's experiences are more entertaining and that brings you closer to him because you look at these guys and think this seems to be a lot of fun. Well, it doesn't just look that way they really did have a lot of fun. In fact that's really all they could do is have fun and more fun and more on top of that, until it wasn't so much fun anymore. But what they couldn't do was just be. They just couldn't face that. So the challenge is to show that honestly without tipping the scales into judgment and taking you outside of the world these characters and the particular ways that they live their lives which was to obliterate all obstacles, all troubles, all difficulties, by taking more drugs, more money.”
https://youtu.be/kTCyZoaORao
The problem is that you have to include people's self-justifications to tell a meaningful story. If Gordon Gekko were an uncharismatic sleazeball who tells everyone "I'm greedy because the misery of others pleases me, haha!", the film wouldn't work as a criticism of Wall Street, because real Wall Street tycoons are usually charismatic and don't say such things in public.
It is a classical hollywood trope to preset a “bad guy” protagonist as cool, charming, and resourceful and with a glamorous life.
Hollywood know how to make you like a character and how to make you dislike one.
The Corleone family is also who viewers identify with in The Godfather.
Contrast with an Eastwood western, where he is the good guy or a guy better than the rest or at least with consistent morals.
1) Michael Douglas is extremely attractive and charismatic, so people like him even if they're not supposed to. Gekko seduces the viewer to the dark side like he seduced Bud Fox.
2) The movie never shows Gekko in jail, so you never see the true consequences.
I have a running joke with my closest friends that we are in a post-satire world because real news today is frequently indistinguishable from satire from 10-20 years ago. Sometimes The Onion headlines just bleed into the monotony of the news cycle, but it's not because they are any less satirical.
The fake self promotional bullshit is so tiring. I quit as a result of this. It's the same as big tech, not any different.
Jane Street SUPPOSEDLY follows a flat hierarchy which has less of these games. I'm not sure how true it is.
The way I think about it: you hire people who are literally self driven and then you constrain them for no reason just to make other people feel in control.
Or maybe I'm just not a good employee. My first job ever told me I'm a horrible employee.
This paper is mostly about risk associated with debt. That's the Fed's job, after all. The current AI bubble is more on the equity side, although, when it pops, we'll see who's been leveraging their equity positions with debt. Historically, up until the 1980s. corporate debt was supposed to be low-risk. If a company went bust, that usually took down the top executives, who were unlikely to get good jobs ever again. As a result, the bond market was boring. Not much trading. Buy and hold.
Then came "high yield bonds" - debt instruments with high returns but a significant risk. The concept was that a broad portfolio of high yield bonds became, statistically, a low-risk loan. Risk management and the Black-Sholes model became a major part of Wall Street activity. That's the background of the paper. The audience to which that paper is addressed knows that, so they only hint at it.
This tends to break down when there's some across the board change. The 2008 US housing crisis is the big modern example. Housing prices went down nationally. The assumption of many Wall Street risk management models was that the risk of independent debt instruments was largely uncorrelated. Sometimes, it's not. The Big Short (2015) is the movie version of this, and it explains all this in an entertaining way. (That's quite an achievement for Hollywood - making an entertaining movie about mortgage risk correlation. It's not about bad people. It's about bad risk models.)
That's the underlying basis of the culture problem. Once investors start accepting that some debt instruments will routinely go bust, perverse incentives appear. Then you get Milken, Boesky, LTCM, and Enron. (Not Madoff; Madoff was a straight Ponzi scheme.) The paper tries to tie this to financial culture. That's not wrong. But it's not the basis of "postmodern capitalism".
All this is to some extent a result of tax policy. Interest received is taxed much more favorably than stock dividends. That encourages debt financing, equity to debt conversion, high-risk lending, and leveraged buyouts. ("Private equity" is mostly leveraged buyouts. Usually the private buyer doesn't have the funds for an all-cash deal.) The line between debt and equity has been blurred. Both are ways to pay for money, but with different tax treatment. There are instruments such as convertible bonds which combine aspects of debt and equity. This effect is so strong that the number of publicly traded companies in the US is down, while the number of tradable financial instruments is way up.
So, the paper is incomplete in that it fails to identify how tax policy increased Wall Street's appetite for risk.