http://www.economist.com/node/9912566?story_id=9912566
"Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School examined* the record of 16 stockmarkets which were in continuous operation over the course of the 20th century. In itself, this selection showed survivorship bias by excluding the likes of Russia and China. The academics found that only three other countries could match the American record of having no 20-year periods with negative real returns.
Other investors were far less lucky. Japanese, French, German and Spanish investors all suffered instances where they had to wait 50-60 years to earn a positive real return; in Italy and Belgium, the waiting period stretched to 70 years. It was no good following the famous advice to "put the shares in a drawer and forget about them"; the furniture would not have lasted that long."
I'd recommend reading the whole article, but long story short, the belief that the stockmarket over the long run always goes up is based off nothing more than confirmation bias, really. So this strategy of investing in the stockmarket could actually come back to bite them in the ass.
Although a one-off gift of, say, a billion dollars, might be "pissed away" relatively quickly, at least the money would definitely be used and reach those who need it.
You know what's really depressing? In a day or two (unless they hope the whole thing can just blow over), the other parties will attack this release of secret documents
To be fair, this might be a bit simplistic - a lot of the time, the law is corrupt, filled with loopholes, or just plain immoral. So, if you claim to be on the side of right and good, there are plenty of reasons you might not follow the law.
For example, if you look to Blackstone and Cicero, Blackstone says that a judge is: ‘sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one...If it be found that the former decision was manifestly absurd or unjust, it is declared, not that such a sentence was bad law, but that it was not law; that is, that it is not the established custom of the realm, as has been erroneously determined.’ (Blackstone, Commentaries)
Cicero also holds that there is a distinction between "true law" (natural law) and the laws that humans create, and that when there is a difference, humans are justified in not following human law.
Personally, I think it's pretty simple in this case - this company is not doing "good works," for the reason that many of the above commenters have noted (collateral damage, etc). That said, I think it's a bit too easy to dismiss out-of-hand all illegal actions as immoral (not even going to get into civil disobedience here, since I don't think it's relevant, but my only point is that there is a place in this conversation for exceptions to the law)
Slashdot Mirror
they really need to lock down those tablets if they want to make money off them
http://www.economist.com/node/9912566?story_id=9912566 "Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School examined* the record of 16 stockmarkets which were in continuous operation over the course of the 20th century. In itself, this selection showed survivorship bias by excluding the likes of Russia and China. The academics found that only three other countries could match the American record of having no 20-year periods with negative real returns. Other investors were far less lucky. Japanese, French, German and Spanish investors all suffered instances where they had to wait 50-60 years to earn a positive real return; in Italy and Belgium, the waiting period stretched to 70 years. It was no good following the famous advice to "put the shares in a drawer and forget about them"; the furniture would not have lasted that long." I'd recommend reading the whole article, but long story short, the belief that the stockmarket over the long run always goes up is based off nothing more than confirmation bias, really. So this strategy of investing in the stockmarket could actually come back to bite them in the ass. Although a one-off gift of, say, a billion dollars, might be "pissed away" relatively quickly, at least the money would definitely be used and reach those who need it.
You know what's really depressing? In a day or two (unless they hope the whole thing can just blow over), the other parties will attack this release of secret documents
To be fair, this might be a bit simplistic - a lot of the time, the law is corrupt, filled with loopholes, or just plain immoral. So, if you claim to be on the side of right and good, there are plenty of reasons you might not follow the law. For example, if you look to Blackstone and Cicero, Blackstone says that a judge is: ‘sworn to determine, not according to his own private judgment, but according to the known laws and customs of the land; not delegated to pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one...If it be found that the former decision was manifestly absurd or unjust, it is declared, not that such a sentence was bad law, but that it was not law; that is, that it is not the established custom of the realm, as has been erroneously determined.’ (Blackstone, Commentaries) Cicero also holds that there is a distinction between "true law" (natural law) and the laws that humans create, and that when there is a difference, humans are justified in not following human law. Personally, I think it's pretty simple in this case - this company is not doing "good works," for the reason that many of the above commenters have noted (collateral damage, etc). That said, I think it's a bit too easy to dismiss out-of-hand all illegal actions as immoral (not even going to get into civil disobedience here, since I don't think it's relevant, but my only point is that there is a place in this conversation for exceptions to the law)