Comments on: Is Technology Evil?

By: Goldman Suchs « Lyonshare

Goldman Suchs « Lyonshare — Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:03:01 +0000

[...] magazine (print? Whassat?) article on Goldman Sachs. It was a nice fluff piece, but I agree with Cringely’s view on why GS is evil — they’re a trading house masquerading as an investment bank. Their most profitable [...]

By: dmdtech

dmdtech — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 20:26:15 +0000

I am not sure if I agree with your post here. See you do make the best point, I don’t think you have actually given a large amount of thought to the opposite side of the argument. Perhaps I could do a guest post or a follow-up, just tell me.

By: Case Blog » Still the Right Position: A Second Term for Ben

Case Blog » Still the Right Position: A Second Term for Ben — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 18:55:52 +0000

[...] to come at things from a slightly different vantage point. My last blog inspired him to write “Is Technology Evil?” (www.cringely.com) He clearly did not like my sports analogies and found wisdom and inspiration in [...]

By: 22-Dec-2009 | MohanArun.com

22-Dec-2009 | MohanArun.com — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 07:58:53 +0000

[...] Cringely on technology – Is Technology evil? – Link. [...]

By: Keegiebear

Keegiebear — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:08:38 +0000

Just the other day, I heard the phrase that describes what you are trying to say. Crimogenic environment.

By: Z.

Z. — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:53:08 +0000

Not in the least, because China is becoming just as owned by large corporations as the US is. Perhaps more so, because the Chinese government views its citizens as ignorant pawns to be shuffled around the board when they get in the way of business — and acts to keep them as ignorant pawns in every way possible.

By: Bob

Bob — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 17:28:27 +0000

When will we learn that just because something can be done does not mean it should be done? When will we learn that financial markets cannot regulate themselves and that citizens should be made to put the interest of their country before their own financial gain? In the past when someone had completely sold out their own country they were called traitors and charged with Treason. Buying imports is one thing (America has always done that since Colonial Times) but to plan the downfall of the American economy and hand it over to China just because they want to be rich is another thing totally. There has got to be a line in the sand.

By: Alex Bowles

Alex Bowles — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:16:50 +0000

I can’t speak for the author, of course, but my interpretation was that GS is to the economy at large what the Big Three were to Detroit. And if left to ‘prosper’ in the same heavily subsidized and legally favored fashion, the economy at large will start looking increasingly like Detroit.

So, you know, not good.

By: trans

trans — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:19:18 +0000

It is in our nature to pursue any small advantage. Clearly the people at Goldman are oblivious to the larger picture. But can we really expect them to be otherwise? They are only acting within their narrow vision as an investment house bent on profit. The problem arises when such a business invades the regulatory bodies, turning oversight decisions to it’s own ends. At that point, the bodies appointed to take the bigger picture into account have been undermined. If these bodies were actually doing their jobs, simple solutions would make all the difference. Solutions like transparent derivative markets, Tobin taxes and making all public businesses pay dividends on gross profits. Very simple plans that would have major stabilizing effects on our economy. Instead we get endless pages of legislation, written by the lawyers of such firms, made to look like action, but only disguising the gates to business as usual.

By: Tor Magnus

Tor Magnus — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:00:09 +0000

I think that though you’ve identified a problem, you haven’t located the underlying cause. High-speed trading is allowed by exchanges and allowed by current legislation and if there is money in it people will do it.

What might be needed is legislation that mandates a cool down period on all purchases, and a minimum holding period for all trades. I don’t think we can get rid of puts, but we could have heavier fines for unsupported or failed puts.