[Bradders]

It may be a non-story and just stating what is essentially standard practice. But I can imagine it’s pretty disheartening for frontline nurses and carers to realise that while they’re working day in day out in an overstretched system barely able to cope,......

Sure. Then why publish it? And why post the link here?? If it's a non-story and disheartening (to some).

Yeah agree with this. It's a story tailor made to incite the unjustifiable anger of those people. It's therefore the journalist and The Guardian who've behaved irresponsibly here.

[ali k]

As for distasteful, I guess everybody is different. Seeing an opportunity and making use of it however, that's just rational (to me).

The point is that the people suffering most from
this crisis (poorly paid nurses, carers, over-occupied residences with no outside space and expected to stay inside 23hrs/day, people falling through the cracks of the government assistance) do not have the excess cash to exploit this opportunity.

The people who are giving up the most during this will come out of it worse off. The people giving up least have the opportunity to come out better off. That’s what’s distasteful to me.

[Bradders]

The people who are giving up the most during this will come out of it worse off. The people giving up least have the opportunity to come out better off. That’s what’s distasteful to me.

Yeah agree. And that's kind of my point, why publish this fake news when there are real and far more significant stories out there?!

[Johnny Brown]

I can only guess the journo was sent to write a piece like this, but didn't know her arse from elbow. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hedge-funds-short-selling-bank-of-england-andrew-bailey-financial-conduct-authority-a9440581.html

I don't see any real issue with going long at the mo, but short does seem to have some technical (feedback - hence BoE plea) and moral issues. Although I'd have thought it's a bit late?

[petejh]

As for distasteful, I guess everybody is different. Seeing an opportunity and making use of it however, that's just rational (to me).

The point is that the people suffering most from
this crisis (poorly paid nurses, carers, over-occupied residences with no outside space and expected to stay inside 23hrs/day, people falling through the cracks of the government assistance) do not have the excess cash to exploit this opportunity.

The people who are giving up the most during this will come out of it worse off. The people giving up least have the opportunity to come out better off. That’s what’s distasteful to me.

Yes, See my previous point. Why publish this (non)story. Why link to this (non)story?? If not to incite bad feeling then what?

[Will Hunt]

Bradders and others have already made as good a point as needs to be made, but the article is wrong in a more fundamental way (as I see it, which might be wrong). The Guardian article implied that people were making money out of the crash caused by the pandemic. That's not strictly true though - they haven't made money out of the crash, they stand to make money during the recovery by being the ones to throw new money into the market when it is in the pit.

[ali k]

Why publish this (non)story. Why link to this (non)story?? If not to incite bad feeling then what?

I didn’t.

[Drew]

Yeah agree. And that's kind of my point, why publish this fake news when there are real and far more significant stories out there?!

I'm curious what people's definition of fake news is. In my opinion there's nothing fake about this. Is it newsworthy? Possibly not. Is it a chance to complain about the huge financial gulf between the Rees-Moggs, and 90% of the UK population? Probably. But most importantly, is it true? As long as the answer to that is yes, then it's not fake.

Or am I being too simple?

[andy popp]

Or am I being too simple?

No, I don't think so. The outrage may be a little over-leveraged, to coin a phrase, but the story is not untrue. It's not fake news. In fact, most things accused of being fake news (e.g. see Trump) are not in any sense fake. It's a phrase that is probably best avoided.

[Bradders]

Or am I being too simple?

No, I don't think so. The outrage may be a little over-leveraged, to coin a phrase, but the story is not untrue. It's not fake news. In fact, most things accused of being fake news (e.g. see Trump) are not in any sense fake. It's a phrase that is probably best avoided.

Sorry Andy I don't agree, two things:

1. The headline very clearly implies Rees-Mogg and the firm are "cashing in on coronavirus crisis". That is not true. See my previous post.

2. The article gives heavy weighting to quotes from Keir Starmer and John McDonnell, which again imply nefarious activity to "profit...from people's suffering" and taking "advantage of this crisis". Again, not true. See my earlier posts.

Taken together, I view the weight of the article as being towards the dissemination of information which is factually inaccurate. Ergo, it's fake information; a story conjured from thin air to play on people's sensitivities and sense of injustice, which is pretty much what all fake news does.

Of course, it's also cleverly disguised given it does contain other pieces of information which are factual.

In fact looking at it again I notice that the Guardian story is actually nothing more than a regurgitation of a story from The Mirror:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jacob-rees-moggs-investment-firm-21814351.amp?f=&__twitter_impression=true

Which arguably is worse.

I can only guess the journo was sent to write a piece like this, but didn't know her arse from elbow. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/hedge-funds-short-selling-bank-of-england-andrew-bailey-financial-conduct-authority-a9440581.html

I don't see any real issue with going long at the mo, but short does seem to have some technical (feedback - hence BoE plea) and moral issues. Although I'd have thought it's a bit late?

Agree, although I imagine it was more a case of the journalist seeing an easy opportunity for click-bait.

Bradders and others have already made as good a point as needs to be made, but the article is wrong in a more fundamental way (as I see it, which might be wrong). The Guardian article implied that people were making money out of the crash caused by the pandemic. That's not strictly true though - they haven't made money out of the crash, they stand to make money during the recovery by being the ones to throw new money into the market when it is in the pit.

Exactly right.

[andy popp]

I just think "fake news" is a dangerous term. It is irredeemably associated with Trump who uses to attack the free press as somehow an enemy of the people. Using it plays into that narrative and we should avoid using it. Call this article a poor, biased or even irresponsible piece of reporting, but don't call it fake news.

[shark]

The vast majority of investors including pension funds will be sitting on losses of 20-40% and a dramatic decline in dividend income. Some of those who use leverage will see those losses magnified or stopped out of positions. Some would like to ride things out but need to cash in a loss for liquidity purposes. Some with spare cash will have an opportunity to mitigate their losses by investing fresh capital but it’s still not risk free in an economic crisis of unknown length and depth. Some investments will multi-bag and others will be wiped out. Yes a lucky or clever few will make fortunes but most won’t.

No one should feel sorry for investors but stoking up hatred is crass. Rees Mogg is a hands off shareholder in a legitimate investment firm whose raisin d’etre is to encourage clients to invest in its products. Surely there are more better targets for the Guardian? They should be trying harder than taking such cheap shots. If that is all they can unearth we must be living in a just and fair country.

[Bradders]

I just think "fake news" is a dangerous term. It is irredeemably associated with Trump who uses to attack the free press as somehow an enemy of the people. Using it plays into that narrative and we should avoid using it. Call this article a poor, biased or even irresponsible piece of reporting, but don't call it fake news.

Fair enough, I get that it's a loaded term.

[Offwidth]

On that Guardian link... it wasn't intended as a hand grenade... interesting that it went that way. I thought it illustrated the craziness of the times, (it is potentially a good, if way more risky than usual, opportunity to invest... but the subject might well be emotive for those with no money to invest or those more focussed on saving lives); secondly,, it usefully contrasted the old and new Labour leadership positions on such things and finally gave a reasonable balanced independent alternative view and a sensible response from the company. That this could escalate to accusations of fake news is weird. Even the headline is true and significant (McDonnell the departing shadow chancellor has accused the firm of that).

The reaction contrasts with earlier posts where some were implying unfair guilt by association for the majority of  those running individual Ltd companies.  In all such situations, although I happen to think our economy needs reform and certainly avoidance loop holes need closing,  what is legal needs legal change and people are entitled to express their different opinions to help make that happen.

[petejh]

Somebody else can pick apart the bullshit in that if they feel like it.

I just don’t believe you. I think you’re disingenuous at best or lying at worst. Yet more political point-scoring bullshit from you.

[ali k]

Jeez Pete you come across as quite aggressive sometimes. It’s only a discussion forum.

[petejh]

I don’t call people political point/scoring bullshitters on a regular basis but reserve it pretty much for one person.
Imagine it typed in a mood of eye-rolling calm amusement if you like.

[Offwidth]

Somebody else can pick apart the bullshit in that if they feel like it.

I just don’t believe you. I think you’re disingenuous at best or lying at worst. Yet more political point-scoring bullshit from you.

Feel free Pete but it's rather sad. I think honesty is important and although like most I will sometimes tell white lies ( for the perceived benefit of others, especially kids), I'm not  knowingly personally dishonest, even when it might benefit me at no risk, let alone in something like a public forum post (other than as a joke).  I also try to admit when I'm wrong.

My life feels surreal at present so I may be a bit more reflective, emotive and occasionally more tetchy than usual (I'll happily apologise for the latter). I might not be communicating as well as I could and my eyesight is getting so bad I probably should be using glasses to avoid subsequent editing.  My work (of 36 years) and I have just mutually agreed to part company yesterday and I was in limbo for a couple of months waiting for that. My wife is also dealing with a lot of tricky stuff. My main mental health safety valve for most of my adult life (climbing) is self embargoed, spending too much time on the climbing internet as a result. In the back of my mind during this pandemic is our 4 parents are all in the high risk group, as well as many close friends and other family,  and friends are at risk in front line work.

I am a genuine social liberal. I believe in the importance of the state and the importance of individual liberty within that. As such I'm simply not anti-investment and have just risked investing more of my money in an ISA with legal tax benefits. I'm often sceptical of ideology, where huge groups of people are claimed as being bad, even if I dislike their position/politics. Where poeple do bad things, especially so those in power, I think it important to speak to that. In relation to that Guardian article it really seems much less bad than some there in terms of leftist political bias (which in itself is often exaggerated by opposite ideologies, as it's a centre left paper, not a socialist one) and my view in this specific case is not anti Rees Mogg, I have much better reasons to be concerned about him.

[Oldmanmatt]

On a lighter note...

This slightly worrying headline:

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2020/04/05/gilead-covid19-coronavirus-remdesivir/?utm_content=124850630&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&hss_channel=fbp-212009668822281

[Offwidth]

4 days late?

[Oldmanmatt]

4 days late?

It’s a joke.

It was presented as such.

You, and Pete are getting a bit arsy.
You don’t look likely to call it quits or make a half arsed apology thing like Alex and I did.

Read the joke. Laugh, or don’t. Then change the subject.

[Somebody's Fool]

I think some of the replies on this thread typify the theme prevalent in Uk politics that anything to do with the left must be forensically held to account, while the right essentially get a free pass.

Is the greater social ill here that someone has written a tenuous article, or that the son of the guy who wrote the book on disaster capitalism stands to make a killing as hundreds of businesses try to find their feet again after CV?

And with regards ‘politics of envy’ and ‘inciting hatred’, let’s not forget the Labour Party is currently in serious trouble in leave voting constituencies. Unless papers like the Mirror can create a convincing counter-narrative to the one the right wing tabloids have created around these heroic brexiteers, by shining a light on their real motivations, it’s going to be very difficult for an arch-remainer to win them back.

[ali k]

Just as an aside, the term ‘politics of envy’ really pisses me off. It seems to me to be just a lazy catch-all dismissal of any attempt at increased equality.

No one would have accused the suffragettes of playing the ‘politics of envy’. Well, no actually they probably did but history wouldn’t look too kindly on that stance now.

[petejh]

I think some of the replies on this thread typify the theme prevalent in Uk politics that anything to do with the left must be forensically held to account, while the right essentially get a free pass.

I'm not sure what 'forensically held to account' means. All that's happening here is people picking up on the fact that an article is bullshit. BS is BS, whatever political rosette it wears.

Is the greater social ill here that someone has written a tenuous article, or that the son of the guy who wrote the book on disaster capitalism stands to make a killing as hundreds of businesses try to find their feet again after CV?

For 'disaster capitalism', see Ali K 'politics of envy / lazy catch-all / pisses me off'.

This is 'contrarian investing'. You'd have a stronger point about it being a 'social ill' if hedge-funds had created Coronavirus and unleashed it on the world in a plan to grow wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

As it is, everyone with money invested, either directly or indirectly (via a pension fund) - and that's most people - will have lost wealth due to the coronavirus outbreak. But everyone is also in a position to grow that wealth again as markets recover.
 
Anybody can invest and make (or lose!) money. All that stops most people is: a. it seems risky, b. lack of knowledge. Anyone here could spend time learning the dark arts of investing, researching companies, and then using their acquired knowledge to spot good entry points. You could even do this with borrowed money at cheap interest rates if you had that sort of appetite for risk.
 
(This bit isn't meant to gloat or show-off, I think it gives a good example) I've been a retail investor for about 20 years, but most active in the last 10. I've invested my own savings and, occasionally, taken out cheap loans to invest the cash. Overall I've done fairly well, some big losses but I've grown the value of my investments.
Last week, I invested £4k of my savings to buy shares in two companies which I'd followed for a few years and could see were probably undervalued after the market crash. As it stands today, I'm up over 20% on that investment.
 
Am I a disaster capitalist? I haven't screwed over anyone. I've done exactly the same as investment funds accused of it are doing. Or are you only a disaster capitalist once people are envious of the amount of wealth you've built? (I'm assuming nobody's envious of my 'wealth'!). I think I'm doing well for myself by using my own resourcefulness to make my money grow, using knowledge I've spent time learning and taking calculated risks.

[Somebody's Fool]

I agree that investing is fine. No problem with that.

I think this idea that the likes of Rees-Mogg are just normal investors is a bit of a reach. 

Do you personally offshore everything you make to avoid paying tax, for that money never to be seen again?

Have you personally scammed a whole nation into leaving the EU so that you can continue doing the above?

My point was admittedly straying from the specifics of this article. But I do think that the soft left or centre left, whatever we’re calling Labour now, have to challenge the motives of these characters by building a convincing and consistent narrative.

The right wing press have managed to convince people by printing nothing but bullshit!