Practical business ethics: when is it appropriate to disclose one's vested interests?

Discussion in 'Business & Economics' started by Seattle, Nov 18, 2022.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    It's not me that needs help.

    It's comical to think that I could be a "paid" promoter of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is decentralized, who would pay me? Why would anyone pay me to "influence" the 10 people reading this on Sciforums? Everyone here could put a million dollars each into Bitcoin and it wouldn't move the price.

    I've never said that Bitcoin is the "bestest investment in the world", again more dishonesty on your part.

    Are you paid to promote fiat currency and do you, in fact, own fiat currency? Come clean. I haven't seen Iceaura around in a while, is it in fact true that you and Iceaura are the same person?

    Why the purposeful ignorance regarding Bitcoin, are you a member of the established banking and governmental community, afraid that people will finally wake up to the scam that is fiat currency?

    How much are you being paid to appear to be so ignorant? Just how much fiat currency do you own? We need to know.

    You, as a member of the "establishment" know that fiat currency essentially loses all of its value in less than 100 years. Why haven't you discussed that? What are you hiding? Have you gotten so rich promoting your fiat currency that you can justify your constant intellectual dishonesty?

    If you don't mind, could you please post your most recent tax filing just so that we can take your statements with some transparency? Thanks.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    Not sure the relevance of Bitcoin to this thread. Can you not take it to another thread? If not, okay, let's deal with this here.

    All you might be able to evaluate of their "enthusiastic promotion" by knowing whether they have a vested interest or not is why they might have that enthusiasm. You can't evaluate the accuracy or validity of their actual claims on the matter from their enthusiasm, however. Those things stand and fall on how they support them, and enthusiasm is not a support. After all, does the accuracy of, or support for, their claims change if they say it more enthusiastically, or less? What if they whisper it quietly and calmly? Or shout it eagerly while jumping up and down? Well? Does the claim become more or less supported as a result of that?

    No, quite clearly and obviously, having a vested interest or not might indeed explain their enthusiasm (but then again it might not), but either way, enthusiasm is irrelevant to the actual claims they might make.
    It's seems more a case of how we can help you, JamesR, in both your understanding and thus in not perpetuating an ad hominem fallacy, across 2 threads now.

    Here, let me help you.
    There's this excellent sticky that someone put together about logical fallacies that you would do well to read and familiarise yourself with.
    I've extracted the salient parts do that you don't have to:

    "In arguing points on sciforums, members should try to avoid committing any of these fallacies, as they all make for weak and flawed arguments."

    ...

    Ad hominem
    An attempt to counter a claim by attacking the person making the claim rather than the substance of the claim itself.
    ...
    "You only say the Earth is round because you have a vested interest in saying that."


    (Bolding mine so that it is clearly highlighted).

    See, in this exampled argument, one person is evaluating the claim by the claimant's vested interested - which you have proxied for their enthusiastic promotion in the case of your Bitcoin example.
    Do you see yet? By arguing, as you are, that one's vested interest is in any way relevant to the claims made, you are committing an ad hominem fallacy.

    You have had it explained to you repeatedly on the other thread, but you have instead chosen to perpetuate it across 2 threads now. If you weren't a moderator you would have likely been given an official warning for such deliberate dishonesty in trying to insist on obviously fallacious logic, and for trolling. But, luckily for you, you're beyond moderation.
    So, yeah, whatever.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Sarkus:

    *yawn*

    Seattle:
    Sarkus, then?
    You haven't thought it through, obviously.
    That's where the thinking comes in, see.
    Paid promoters aren't usually on just one internet site.
    Relevance?
    No. A mistake on your part. I didn't say you said that. I'll accept your apology.
    The answers are: no and yes.

    See how easy it is to be honest and open?
    No, we aren't the same person. (Another easy one.)
    I'm not ignorant of Bitcoin, not pretending ignorance. That is just another mistaken assumption you and Sarkus have made.

    I'm not going to tell you who I work for. I don't want you guys stalking me. But, like I said, I'm not a paid promoter of any currency.

    And you? And Sarkus?
    How rude of you. Have you no manners?
    You don't need to know. Don't tell lies.
    It's off topic. Start a new topic if you want to discuss that.
    I asked first.
    When did you stop beating your wife?
    I mind.

    I have no interest with engaging with you further on this topic. You seem quite incapable of civil discussion. Besides, it sound like you're just a mouthpiece for Sarkus. Is he coaching you?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Moderator note: some posts about Bitcoin have been moved from the UFO thread to this one. I'm not sure why Seattle wanted to move the Bitcoin conversation to the UFO thread. Anyway, one thread is enough for this stupidity.
     
    pjdude1219 likes this.
  8. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    He didn't. You did. He mentioned something about spaceships (post #216 in this thread, but on topic in the UAP thread) and you responded about Bitcoin (#220), for whatever reason.
    But I guess just more of the dishonesty that we've come to expect from you, eh, this time in trying to pass the blame for a derailment, to go along with your continued irrelevant ad hominem in this thread - that you're too dishonest to recognise/acknowledge despite having it rubbed in your face.
    C'est la vie.

    Maybe you want to amend your logical fallacies sticky to say that it's okay to argue ad hominem if you're a moderator, or if you simply want to cast aspersions on someone's character, and as such create a fallacious reason to avoid the points that the person has actually made. 'Cos that's what you're saying is now acceptable behaviour. But since talking about your dishonesty, or simply having it pointed out to you, seems to make you tired these days.... whatever.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Sarkus:
    It is very clear to me that Seattle, in asking me to declare a vested interest in spaceships, really wanted to try to spread the Bitcoin discussion into the other thread.

    I hope that's now clear to you as well.
    You made a mistake. Now that you know where you went wrong, I will accept your apology.
     
  10. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    You are seeing only what you want to see, JamesR. It is clear to me that he was simply taking an opportunity to use your own tactic against you. There was no intent to discuss Bitcoin. If you honestly believe your question in this thread was relevant, why is the question he raised in the UAP thread not relevant? And if relevant, why did you start discussing Bitcoin, which was irrelevant to that thread?
    It was you, and you alone, that turned the discussion to Bitcoin, presumably because you recognised the nature of the argument he was employing, and from which thread you used it.
    Your error is quite clear, thanks. You dragged that discussion to Bitcoin. Using your tactic, that you used in this Bitcoin thread, in another unrelated thread, was not an invitation to continue the Bitcoin discussion. You, and you alone, turned that request to a discussion on Bitcoin.
    Hopefully that is now clear to you.
    No doubt having your errors and fallacious arguments constantly pointed out to you is making you tired, though.
    I didn't go wrong, JamesR. You made assumptions as to intent and were wrong. No need for you to try to apologise, though, as I know you're incapable of doing even that. Just correct your behaviour in future, please. You're a moderator, after all, so you really should know better.
    And taking pot-shots at people as you move their posts, even had those comments not been wrong, is unbecoming of a moderator. Just move the posts and leave it at that. That would be the grown-up thing to do. Or do you insist on forever remaining in the playground while claiming you're outside?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2022
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    Do you consider accusing me of "telling lies" to be civil? Is Iceaura coaching you? Who are you a mouthpiece for? Is that a comment that is generally used in civil discussion?

    You seem to have an unlimited interest in engaging with every thread of this site. You're in a category of one there it seems. Is it civil to accuse Sarkus and I of stalking you at work?
     
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Still advertising, I see.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Still spruiking for bitcoin, I see. What are you guys? Do you work for crypto exchanges, or something?
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    You still spruiking for ignorance, I see. What are you? Do you work for a bank or something?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Seattle:

    I'm not the one spending every post talking up the banking system.

    On the other hand, when it comes to Bitcoin, you're like a walking advertisement. Might as well hang a clapboard sign around your neck. It's that obvious.

    Is crypto part of your paid employment, or something? Or do you just love Bitcoin because you invested in it yourself? Or what?

    If this is your job - talking up cryptocurrencies (or, at least, Bitcoin) - then you ought to declare your interest and stop pretending you're like an unbiased person giving financial advice to our members.
     
  16. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    We've already gone over all this. It's getting monotonous. It's silly to keep implying it's my job or that I'm getting paid. No one on here is getting paid to post whatever they choose to post.

    I am an unbiased person, I've already said I own some bitcoin. Why do you keep focusing on this. You just disagree with my opinion and you seem to not be able to leave it at that. You have to be "right" apparently.

    You don't mention any other economic point or post that I make and only zero in on a statement if I mention Bitcoin. You just don't want me to mention Bitcoin for some reason. This really has nothing to do with me and, apparently, everything to do with you.

    It's not different that any other opinion that you hold. If someone has a different opinion you seem to take it as a personal affront.

    In other environments I'll post critical questions regarding Bitcoin even though I do have positive options regarding it as well. In those situations, many will "jump' on me as not being a "true Bitcoin believer". Some people just can't handle nuance of opinion and everything has to be black or white.

    It's either "guns are the fucking problem" or " guns are great and there is no problem". I'm not wired like that. No, I don't work for the gun lobby either. I don't work for the investment industry either nor am I a Republican.

    Lighten up.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    It's not silly if it's your job and you're getting paid to promote Bitcoin. So, are you? It would explain a lot about your posts on this topic.
    I see what you're doing there. You're trying to argue that if you aren't being directly compensated for promoting Bitcoin, then you don't have a conflict of interest when you promote it.

    But, on the other hand, if your day job requires you to promote Bitcoin, you're hardly likely to say bad things about it on sciforums, are you? You're probably going to keep doing what you - which is to promote Bitcoin.

    For our members, that means that - from you as a paid promoter of Bitcoin - they won't get an unbiased view of it. Worst case scenario is that they will take your advice and invest in it, without finding out about the downsides of Bitcoin.

    Do you think you have any responsibility when you give financial advice to other people on the internet? Or not?
    Because something smells fishy about your enthusiastic pushing of Bitcoin. You could help clear that up by telling us whether you actually work in the financial sector selling Bitcoin. Of course, we'd still have to decide whether to take your word for it or not, but at least there'd be full disclosure of any vested interests (if they exist).
    I don't actually care whether it is your fervent belief that Bitcoin is the best thing since sliced bread or that it's a dangerous, worthless investment. My concern is that you have an undeclared vested interest, possibly.
    Well, now that you mention it, if you're commenting on government monetary policy, for example, and you're employed in the government's financial apparatus, that should equally be something you ought to declare. But I don't get the sense that you have that kind of vested interest, from your posts. Whereas I do sense a vested interest when it comes to your hearty and consistent promotion of Bitcoin.

    See the difference?
    Ideally, I'd just like you to be open and honest with your readers, concerning any vested interests you might have. Especially when you're giving financial advice.

    It would be no different if you were giving medical advice - e.g. on whether people should get a Covid 19 vaccination. If you're a medical professional I want to know, in that case. If you're an anti-vax protester, I also want to know that.

    Can you understand why?
    I'm an administrator here. I am concerned for our members.

    You haven't convinced me to put my hard-earned into Bitcoin, yet. Maybe you could convince me, but I'd want to know your credentials as a financial expert, first, at the very least. If you seem to be hiding something - which you do, to me - then I'm going to distrust what you say.

    I know, however, that some of our members are more gullible than I am. I feel a certain moral responsibility. Otherwise, I wouldn't bother engaging with you on this. I already know the likely outcome, but it's worth giving it another try.
    You're wrong. And it's not about that.
    I haven't seen you post anything critical of Bitcoin on sciforums. Quite the opposite.
    You could have saved a lot of time and effort with that post by just saying "I don't work for the investment industry". That's what I wanted to know. I assume the "investment industry" covers the giving of professional financial advice. So you're saying that's not part of your job description. Okay. Good to know.
     
  18. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    I don't work for anyone. I'm retired. I have an MBA in international business. I've worked in international banking and I've worked in an engineering test lab. None of that has anything to do with Bitcoin or with what I post.

    Wearing your scientist hat you claim to only deal in facts whether that's discussing UFO's or anything else yet you outright claim that I am being paid to promote Bitcoin when I have said that I'm not "promoting" anything (I could care less if you buy Bitcoin) and I'm not paid to do anything.

    Yet you continue to state as fact that which which you have no data for at all other than your hunch. MR has a "hunch" that aliens may be on Earth.

    I'm also not giving "financial advice" when I discuss subjects in economic sub-forums. Are you giving religious advice in the religion sub-forums? Are you being paid to promote science? What exactly is your day day. Is it related to science? If so shouldn't you state that at the beginning of every thread as you seem to expect others to do?

    I have a "hunch" that you are spreading misinformation purposely about Bitcoin. Are you biased? Are you biased where UFO's are concerned? How about when religion is concerned.

    Something smells fishy. What is going on? Care to come clean to us all? Are you, in fact, a scientist? Are you in fact an atheistic? Have we uncovered some big scoop here? Now it's all becoming clear. You've been exposed. Is that correct?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Seattle:
    I find it strange that your work in international banking has done nothing to inform or influence your views about Bitcoin. But, whatever. I guess I'm supposed to take that at face value?
    No. I don't make that claim. I often express my opinions here. However, I try to clearly differentiate my personal opinions from "facts", whenever it is important to do that.
    I made no claim. I asked you a question.
    You've said that now. But before, you were belligerently insisting that you needn't declare any vested interests you might have, and refusing to say whether you were a paid promoter or not. Your mate Sarkus chimed in last time to vigorously defend your right not to declare vested interests, too - though that's another story.
    I think I was clear about what is my hunch and what isn't.
    You seem to be suggesting, consistently, that you think that Bitcoin is a good investment. Coming from a guy who worked in international banking, some might consider that financial advice. But it's just your opinion, completely uninformed by your work experience. Well, okay, if you say so.

    At least this is clear now. All I ever wanted was clarity from you on this.
    What's religious advice?
    Full disclosure: yes, I am, in a way. But nobody is paying me to promote science here, on sciforums.
    Yes, my day job is "related to science".
    Tell me why you think I should.
    Okay. Whatever.

    If there's something specific I have stated about Bitcoin that you believe is false or inaccurate, I think you'd be better off bringing that up directly.
    Undoubtedly, on many topics.
    In what way? Be specific.
    Probably. I'm happy to answer specific questions, if you have them.
    About what? Why?
    Would it matter to you if I was? Tell me why.
    An atheist? Yes, I am, in fact. Why do you ask? Couldn't you tell from my posts?
    Doesn't seem like it to me. What do you think?
    Maybe.

    Happy?
     
  20. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,857
    It's odd that you've asked me why certain things that I brought up matter and yet you do it and it seems to matter to you. Those things I brought up don't matter to me, that was the point.

    Regarding banking, I was in trade finance. That has nothing to do with Bitcoin. I wasn't some personal banker pushing investments. I wasn't in a branch. Think more about the financial instruments and rules and regulations to finance a Rolls Royce engine on a Boeing airline or finance a container ship full of timber for Sunkyoung, or dealing with capital exchange controls in Korea.

    Regarding your comments and Bitcoin, you just seem ignorant (not in a pejorative sense) meaning not well informed of the most basic facts of the subject matter. Do I think Bitcoin is a good investment? Yes, for some but I don't really care about what people invest in. That would also involve assessing risk, size and diversification, time frame and an understanding of the subject in general. I'll discuss stocks, real estate or anything else that someone may find interesting. My purpose wouldn't be pushing investment advice. I have no interest in that nor have I ever been involved in that as a career.

    I'm also interested in economics and will discuss that. That doesn't mean I'm pushing economics or trying to change anyone's opinion unless it's in the sense of someone wanting to learn more.

    There's a lot of ignorance regarding Bitcoin so if someone wants to discuss it in a more informed way I'm happy to oblige. If you saw that someone was ignorant (mistaken) regarding some scientific subject you would probably respond to help them out if learning is what they were after.

    If they just were choosing to be ignorant (which often happens) then you would just move on I'm guessing. Those who insist on pushing some pseudo science are going to get a different reaction from you than someone who wasn't clear about how evolution works, was talking about monkeys, you clear that up and they became better informed regarding evolution.

    On the other hand if they insisted that "I didn't come from no damn monkeys" then you would probably just leave them in their ignorance. That's my approach as well.

    If someone wants to focus on Bitcoin not being backed by anything, being used by criminals, using too much energy and not being a better currency than the dollar then after some discussion and they continue with those things, I just move on as well.

    My negative concerns with Bitcoin would be along the lines of what happens after several more halvings will they will have less and less affect, how will a fixed supply work in a growing world, and there's several more unknowable aspects. There are also possible replies to my concerns.

    This isn't the equivalent to Bitcoin being "bad" or "good". You can have Bitcoin coexist with traditional finance even though traditional finance is worried. Governments are worried because with competition they can't expand the money supply so easily.

    Some aspects of Bitcoin not applicable in developed countries are very important in 3rd world countries. It's not one size fits all and it's not all or nothing.

    Most of the "fear" or "ignorance" regarding Bitcoin is just making up fake fears and then attacking them. Cars were going to kill everyone. Let's stay with horse and buggies. It's not that there was no truth to any of that but it was overblown and missing the point.

    There is going to be some form of digital money in the future. Government digital money is very open to abuse. Bitcoin is decentralized and fixed and it has a large market and there are several reasons why it will probably continue to be dominate. It may not however.

    The same can be said however for the dollar. My point is just that the "anger" that pops up when someone brings up Bitcoin is largely overblown and is due to lack of knowledge regarding the subject. It's like AI. Some fear that it will end the world and others love it. The reality is likely to be that it's here to stay and that there will be some pros and some cons just like with anything else.

    Nothing is perfect and most things aren't that dramatic and nuance is more important than overreacting.

    Most people (including me) went through similar stages when reacting and learning about Bitcoin. Initially it's reading the definition of Bitcoin, thinking OK but ...what is Bitcoin.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Then it's thinking this is just like Pet Rocks or some other fad. Then it's understanding that it really isn't about a "currency" for the most part. It's about a store of value. Then it's learning that it's been around for 11 years, learning about the blockchain, addressing the issues of energy, criminals, how it works, the need for a perfectly designed from scratch digital money that moves at the speed of light (basically), low expenses, no "clearing", no need for trust, and on and on.

    Someone said that you have to study it for about 100 hours before you have any understanding of it and maybe 1000 hours before you aren't a novice. You read "The Bitcoin Standard" and then "The Fiat Standard" and then "The Price of Tomorrow."

    You set up an account and buy a little and learn about the actual infrastructure and so on.

    It's not for everyone and it's not the end all be all. Like ChatGPT it might be in the same category as being as important and impactful in the future as the internet is today.

    That's why I'm at least interested in it just as I am with ChatGPT.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2023
  21. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You've asked me before, and the answer remains the same. Now, do you have anything of interest to offer the actual discussion? A view about something that has been discussed, perhaps? Or is focussing on the person really all you have? Just asking. So the readers know.
     
  22. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    You didn't read up on the ethics of appropriate disclosure of vested interests in the interim? Can't say I'm surprised to learn you didn't.
    Nah. I think I'm good. Thanks for asking, though.
     
  23. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,356
    You haven't learnt that, so stop lying, please. There remains nothing in my posts in this thread that require such ethical considerations. That is simply you still trying to argue the person rather than their position. So you can continue to ask, and I will continue to tell you it's irrelevant to what I have said, if you are so determined to keep trolling this thread.
    So you're just trolling again. I get it. Thanks for confirming. Now why don't you just scoot along and leave this thread to those that are discussing the actual issues. But do feel free to come back should you ever muster even a remotely interesting thought on the matter, though.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page