Energy is more expensive, food is more expensive, both due to real shortages. If we are going into a recession it makes it even more difficult to afford on average, a huge chunk of the population is going to struggle to eat, to keep warm, many will die. You want to figure out how to personally profit off the recession - further increasing the difficulty for others to get their share of the limited resources during - so should you?
Unless you are intending to profit by providing some kind of intrinsic value to society which could improve the situation even indirectly, I'd say no, it's unethical to exploit this situation to extract wealth using financial tools.
You should. Like it or not the world is finite with limited resources. There are winners and losers. If you want to help people, then win and start a scholarship or pay off someone's medical debt. No sense in suffering with everyone else when you were smart enough not to.
The finance industry argues publicly that it's responsible for funding the sciences and the study of Old Nature while it builds an opaque jungle of New Nature in which it preys on other humans.
When the "losers" wise up to what you claim and collectively want to kill you, who will the smart person be then? I'm not personally feeling that towards you, just illustrating a completely rational hypothetical response of a large group of someone you'd label suckers or losers.
I think everyone should look after themselves first, so that they can be in the position to look after others. Like oxygen masks on a plane. If I can profit today I'll have more to donate tomorrow.
Lets be honest here, in your analogy someone already has an oxygen mask and is figuring out how to get a few more canisters of oxygen even though there is (or possibly was) enough to go around.
We shouldn't conflate competition for the finite resources (food, energy, etc.) with creating wealth (which is not finite).
If I invest in bonds and make some money, it's not taking food or warmth away from anyone else. On the contrary, I might be helping fund additional food and warmth. (In this example, my analogy is backwards because I'm actually profiting later in order to feed someone today).
When there is an economic event that pushes a massive portion of the population under or very close to the line that allows them to buy their fair share of those finite resources, then redistribution of wealth is competing for those finite resources.
This makes it sound as if wealth is being taken from the unfortunate and given to the fortunate. But the unfortunate are going to be at/below the line regardless, even if the fortunate all decide not to profit off the event. On the other hand, if some people get to profit (responsibly, in a way that doesn't make anyone else worse off), that seems like a net gain.
Quite literally, no. We're literally seeing rich energy companies profit off of the energy crisis by increasing prices more than they need to. Salaries for their CEOs are at all time highs.
OK, but my point is it's possible to be a responsible investor.
My example was bonds. The US helped the poor with stimulus checks when COVID hit. Where did the money come from? They issued bonds. Same deal with the Ukraine aid.
Meanwhile I'm buying treasury bonds which I'll profit off. Please tell me who is getting screwed here.
People out there aren't planning to avoid struggling to live during the crash, while people here are planning to avoid struggling to buy a second home after the recession.
Who should be rewarded? It's complicated. I tend to agree with what you suggest though. Some limit needs to be in place to avoid unnecessary cruelty to humans, as humans in cruel situations produce volatile outcomes. The finance industry is opaque by design, and the average person shouldn't be punished by being deliberately led into the dark.
I know, it's hard to answer because the more you dig the more you start to ask uncomfortable questions about the fundamental nature of our economy and the emergence of varying degrees of wealth inequality... at which point saying when you should or shouldn't be greedy seems arbitrary.
People can debate and justify varying degrees of inequality all day long... but I think it's reasonable to draw a hard line at "surviving". If there is an economic event that cuts of a huge chunk of the population from being able to meet basic needs, even though regardless of money the resources are there, then clearly an adjustment is needed.
If you should, if your philosophy is to take advantage of the weakest, I hope you won't cry if in the not too distant future someone takes advantage of your weaknesses. Otherwise, your philosophy should be reviewed for being incoherent.
And remember, kids, this strange gluttony that our civilization possesses is the cause of many of the world's problems.
I don't find your argument valid. People struggle to survive based on their own merits, choices and situation(luck).
OP is just asking for ways to profit from a recession. Not in any way contributing to other people's suffering.
For an analogy, I do think it's unethical to hoard medical supplies during covid to resell. But it's perfectly fine to have bought oil or oil stocks and make a killing!
> OP is just asking for ways to profit from a recession. Not in any way contributing to other people's suffering.
My entire argument is that these two things are related, and become more so when times are hard. People like to believe they are not, that their rewards are entirely created with their own two hands, but the world is not that simplistic.
Yeah I don't agree. Making wealth is not a zero sum game. If that were true, the global supply of money would be finite and long term all money would be deflationary as the population has increased. And if truly an exchange of goods/money left no one better off, then markets would not exist. Why would anyone give their labor or money to someone else if they end up worse off for it?
But if I buy some rice from the Indian market, then we are both better off because we've made an exchange for items that have greater value for us. I don't see why it's any different for investments when no one is compelled to buy or sell.
Energy is more expensive, food is more expensive, both due to real shortages. If we are going into a recession it makes it even more difficult to afford on average, a huge chunk of the population is going to struggle to eat, to keep warm, many will die. You want to figure out how to personally profit off the recession - further increasing the difficulty for others to get their share of the limited resources during - so should you?
Unless you are intending to profit by providing some kind of intrinsic value to society which could improve the situation even indirectly, I'd say no, it's unethical to exploit this situation to extract wealth using financial tools.