|
|
#1 |
|
FFR Player
|
Hmm... methinks that this forum is in sore need of some new threads.
In any case, I just finished watching the (unedited) interview between Jon Stewart and Jim Cramer, the financial analyst working for CNBC, and I think the interview raises some interesting issues that require discussion. Namely, to what extent are we liable for our own actions? With respect to this particular segment, the main critique that Stewart put out was that financial news analysts were perfectly knowledgeable about the impending economic crisis, yet chose to misrepresent information that lulled the public into a false sense of security, an act that Stewart deemed "disingenuous at best and criminal at worst." Yet, on the other hand, is there not some measure of personal responsibility that we must take for our own mistakes, even if those mistakes were invariably influenced by others? More specifically, to what extent is it justifiable to look at the victims of the current economic situation and say "tough cookies, you should have thought a bit more before you did the stupid things you did"? More concisely, it is obviously egregiously unfair to place all the blame on the media, but to what extent can we justifiably hold them responsible for the current economic pit we find ourselves in? On the other side of the same coin, to what extent can we blame the laypeople who made unwise investments, lured by the promise of false riches given to them by a bubbling market? This question obviously generalizes past the current fiscal crisis. The pervasiveness of marketing in today's society allows the media to have a paramount impact on many of the decisions we choose to make. So in that context, to what extent should the media be responsible for the well-being of their audience? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well at first blush, my reaction wants to be "The media is just another (series of) source(s) of information, and it is entirely incumbant on you to take in the information, and make your decision" and suggest in fact that absolutely none of the blame ought to lay with the media if blame ought to lay with anybody besides "ourselves"
Nothing is stopping you from seeking out other opinions and other sources of information before making important decisions, and surely SOMEONE in economics has been saying "Uh guys..." this whole time, and it was just a matter of not giving them sufficient exposure. But then at the same time, every person is not an expert, and shoudln't be made to become an expert about everything. If I trust a doctor to tell me what my symptoms mean and suggest a course of treatment, and they doctor was either wrong, or simply not sufficiently correct and something goes wrong, it's not my fault for just trusting what they said, in fact they are often held legally responsible -because- of their expertise, so in that sense, people being presented as "experts" in the media ought to be held to some standard of responsibility for potentially misleading the public who has put faith in their putative expertise. I suppose the degree to which outside "expert" sources of information ought to be held responsible for providing misleading expertise should be somehow proportionate to the degree to which their expertise is legitimately specific. A doctor misdiagnosing a patient is held wholly responsible, a celebrity endorser telling you a new food is healthy when it isn't probably ought not be held all that responsible at all, and I guess television news 'experts' would fall somewhere in between. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
While I'm not saying the media is completely innocent, I do feel that the individual himself is fully responsible for his own finical actions. The media is not a substitute for financial advice, it simply throws information out at its audience and while it maybe tainted and biased, it is up to the recipient of this ''information'' to sort through it all and get "expert" advice. Most of the content of the media in regards to finances are either opinion of experts or simple raw data. The media is many times wrong about issues, and is known to twist the fact though it tries to state things as objectively as possible. For an individual to place a down payment on a home based solely on the optimistic ''Opinion" they hear from a financial guru from some radio talk show or television interview without actually getting personal advice from their own financial adviser is very fool hardy.
As mentioned, the reports by these "financial experts" are and were very mis-leading, and did lull people into a dangerous feeling of security when in reality danger was nigh at hand. Yet still, that is no excuse for not to obtaining one's own personal financial advice from a paid expert, esp when making major decisions such as obtaining loans and large investments. Its almost as equivalent to obtaining a major surgery based solely on some commercial by a renowned doctor telling that the surgery works. The issue of advertising products through our modern media is a whole different issue. The advertisers are bound by products liability and while generally this refers to safety issues, it also encompasses false advertising and misrepresentation, such that if their product fails to meet the standards that they advertise it as, the company that displays the product will be held responsible. Obviously this is not the case in regards to the financial discussion and exposure which is the topic of this thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
|
Obviously one of the biggest things to sort through is being individualistic in a group based society. We talked about this kind of message in my sociology class a while back where America as a whole would favor someone to be an individual, making their own decisions and treading their own path. However, this very often leads to falling into a group or a generalization because fight it or not we are part of a whole. Now when you put this into the personal accountability subject its no wonder why its so confusing to find out when the individual is held responsible. Its virtually the same discussion as whether or not the parents are responsible for a child who make poor decisions or if its simply the child's fault because "they should have known better".
I think that its not all as simple as pointing the finger to show who's to blame. I think very realistically whenever a problem arises (whether in the financial world or in personal lives) EVERYONE should take partial blame because its not usually one big event but rather a lot of little ones. Its all a matter of minor faults that are perpetuated by one another which turns into a snowball effect. As for finding who should be held MOST accountable i believe its obvious to say that it comes to the individual. Granted there's no way of being able to know whether you are receiving poor information most times, but if we live in a world where we throw personal accountability out the window then we are basically saying that we have to have an overseeing power that constantly watches over and takes care of us for "we dont know any better." This is the problem i see with the progressing US culture. We live in a society that almost teaches us that when a problem arises you can always blame it on someone else. With our ability to sue, for example, sure there are many situations where someone can use this system to obtain justice but you hear about it all the time where a company gets sued over a customer slipping or spilling hot coffee on themselves. Who is really to blame here? The company for not watching over their customers and anticipating them harming themselves or the negligence of the customer to not think something through because they believe it is the responsibility of the company to watch over things? There are examples of this all over the place where our system of government basically tells us its ok to place blame on someone else. Things like our education system, financial situation, and personal lives have almost come to expect that something should be constantly taking care of it. To conclude for now, i think it is very ignorant to have the adolescent tendency to expect to be able to live your own life and be an independent but also to be taken care of for when the *$#* hits the fan you can say its not your fault. Being misled or not, people should constantly be looking out for themselves and not expect it from others. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
FFR Player
|
Devonin, that actually brings up an interesting point - why are doctors held responsible for every little mistake they make? Coming from a family where many of my relatives are doctors, I think I've experienced this issue a bit from the other side of the fence, and overall it seems grossly unrealistic to expect a doctor to be infallible. Yes, they're experts, and yes, they should be trustworthy, but there's just something inherently wrong in expecting perfection from even someone who deals with life and death. Of course, human life is obviously more valuable than financial resources... so is there a strong correlation between the level of expert accountability and the value of what's at stake? From an objective standpoint, that seems purely arbitrary.
Bobeck, is there enough of a difference between a personal financial adviser and these "financial gurus" that you speak of? In a sense, shouldn't these "financial gurus" be held to an even higher standard? They have a much bigger audience, and presumably they have a much higher amount of experience to get to the highly visible position that they find themselves in. And networks like CNBC which make the strong statement that they are an excellent, viable source for financial advice seem to be sending the message that their financial advice definitely carries weight. And, ultimately, these financial issues are more applicable on a global level than on a personal level, so I don't really see how getting personal advice on these big investments is necessarily advantageous over listening to an ostensibly authoritative media source. And this issue definitely generalizes. Safety and product liability issues are not what I'm concerned with - for the sake of argument we can assume these things are generally satisfied. But, there are still a lot of liberties taken with advertising, liberties that still can be construed to be legal. And I'm not only talking about advertising; what about news sources? Even the entertainment industry? etc. Slipstrike - I'm not really talking about frivolous lawsuits. Obviously anybody sane can see that the guy who sued for spilling coffee on his hand was just out to get money and was overall an idiot. But still, given a situation in which I want to do something, and there is an expert who objectively is more experienced in that something, am I not justified in placing some weight into what that alleged expert says? And, when that advice fails horribly, am I not equally justified in asking the expert to be accountable for his failure to advise me correctly? It's like the doctor example devonin brought up - obviously if a doctor amputates the wrong leg, you can't just be like "oh man it is totally my fault for coming to this doctor." So there is definitely a point where you just can't rely on yourself completely, especially in a society that has been increasingly dependent on its citizens becoming more and more specialized in a specific field. I'm not saying that personal responsibility should be thrown out the window, but I'm just trying to elucidate the point where you can justifiably say "okay, I got f***ed but I am merely a victim of faulty advice." |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 | ||
|
FFR Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 38
|
Quote:
This question involves the duty of care a doctor owes to his/her patient and the issue of negligence. For a doctor to be liable for his actions, it must be proven that the doctor was negligent, and negligent meaning breached his duty of care he owed his patient. The duty of care is determined by what a reasonable doctor of competent abilities (in the same field of practice) would have done. If a doctor falls below this standard, he is then liable. if not then he can not be held responsible for an adverse result. While this reasonableness test is a very subjective test (which explains many of the drawn out ongoing lawsuits) it does offer some assistance. Keep in mind that a reasonable doctor is more of a hypothetical doctor taking into account what is considered general practice, customs, rate of success etc. If a patient died because the doctor forgot to remove an intestinal clamp, should be be liable? The courts will look to whether a reasonable doctor exercising due care would have made that mistake. The answer is NO, he would NOT have made this mistake and thus most will find this to be negligence on part of the doctor and he will be held liable. However, say the doctor recommends a procedure that its used 60% of the time by other doctors given the same situation. If the procedure is performed flawlessly and yet the patient dies or suffers sever side affects, should the doctor be held responsible for choosing that procedure? While the outcome may vary, I'd have to say probably not given the fact that a reasonable doctor (given the fact that 60% of doctors use it) would have acted likewise. The same issue goes with a miss diagnosis. If a doctor fails to properly diagnose his patient and a reasonable and thorough inspection would have caught the problem, then the doctor will be liable. I'll end by saying that while it MAY seem that doctors are held to a standard of perfection, that is not the case. The level they are held to is that of reasonableness and reasonableness is defined as what a doctor of competent abilities would have done. Also, legally, the level of accountability and liability is largely affected by the kind of relationship between the client /adviser or doctor/patient. There is a great difference with regards to liability between meeting a doctor in a grocery store striking up a conversation with him and getting his opinion of a health problem you may be having vs. making an appointment with your family doctor and getting his opinion on the matter. The same is true with economic advice. There's a big difference between getting advice from some expert who's broad casting on the radio versus meeting with your personal paid for financial adviser. Liability is many times (obviously there are exceptions) contingent on the type of relationship. Quote:
Those on television can only speak in generalities and have not sufficient knowledge of an individuals peculiar economic circumstances. Thus to take and act upon their advice that was directed at the general population without further ''personal" aid and to hold them responsible for once's financial undoing is quite foolish. In regards to a paid for financial adviser, there is an expected level of accountability as there is now privity between the the two. In this instances if and individual relies on this counselors advice takes action and it is found to be faulty, then the blame should rest fully on the adviser. I'll compare this to the attorney client relationship. Say your injured in a car accident and seek compensation. On television, there is an interview with a top attorney and he briefly mentions that compensation from car accident injures are most likely successful. You then decided on your own to file a law suit believing that the judgment will be granted in your favor. Should you loose your case, would you then go and blame the attorney that was broadcasted? I should hope not. However had you then gone and hired your own attorney, brought the suit and lost, then the blame could then be shifted to your personal counsel. |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|