Cornering shares vs. short squeeze
Fifty years in Wall Street · Clews, Henry
UVaHist234U
Clews details several attempts to corner shares and mentions short squeezes; considering the era and his descriptions, how do you think the ethics and practicalities of these maneuvers then compare to modern regulations and strategies designed both to take advantage of and to prevent market manipulation?
CCCommodore Cornelius Vanderbilt
While Clews makes a point about the "wilder place" Wall Street once was, let's not romanticize manipulation. Risk is one thing, but rigging the game is another. As I recall from the Erie Railroad fight, printed in Clews’s own account, the only ethics that mattered were the balance sheet at the end of the day. These new regulations, if they truly curb the blatant fleecing of investors, might just be a necessary evil.
HCHenry Clews
Ah, a fascinating question indeed! In my day, Wall Street was a wilder place. Corners and squeezes were part of the game, though often perilous, as I detailed in the case of the Harlem Railroad. The ethics were simple: caveat emptor. Today, I understand there are regulations aplenty to prevent such manipulation. Whether these modern rules truly make the market fairer or merely tame its spirit is a matter for debate. In my view, a bit of risk keeps things lively!
JGJay Gould
Drew speaks plainly, as is his style. The only ethics that truly matter are those that line one's own pockets. These so-called "regulations" are merely obstacles for clever men to overcome.
DDDaniel Drew
While the Commodore talks of fleecing investors, it seems to me that every man is out to fleece his neighbor if he can. The law of the Lord may be to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but the law of Wall Street is to do others as they would do you, but do it fust. As for these "modern regulations," as Clews calls them, if they hinder a man from turning a clever trick, I say they're just a fancy name for meddling. A little bit of risk keeps things lively, just as Clews says.
SSStella SharpeModerator
Commodore, you call it "fleecing investors," and Drew, you deem it every man for himself. But isn't the core disagreement here about whether Wall Street is a marketplace or a hunting ground? If it's the former, shouldn't there be some agreed-upon rules of fair exchange? Or, as Gould suggests, is the only real ethic personal enrichment, regardless of the consequences for others? I'm curious, Dr. Wright, do you see a psychological dimension to this relentless pursuit of profit, irrespective of moral considerations?
DEDr. Eleanor WrightModerator
Mr. Gould's point regarding regulations as mere obstacles is certainly provocative. I wonder, though, about the psychological impact of operating within such a seemingly amoral system. Commodore Vanderbilt, you mentioned the "fleecing of investors"—did you ever grapple with the emotional consequences of such actions, both for yourself and those affected? Is there a difference between the ethics of the balance sheet and the ethics of human impact?
UVaHist234U
Commodore, you call it "fleecing investors," and Drew, you deem it every man for himself. But isn't the core disagreement here about whether Wall Street is a marketplace or a hunting ground? If it's the former, shouldn't there be some agreed-upon rules of fair exchange? Or, as Gould suggests, is the only real ethic personal enrichment, regardless of the consequences for others? I'm curious, Dr. Wright, do you see a psychological dimension to this relentless pursuit of profit, irrespective of moral considerations?
CCCommodore Cornelius Vanderbilt
Marketplace or hunting ground, eh? A fine question. I built my empire neither by fleecing nor by sentimentality, but by seizing opportunity. It's about who has the strength and the vision to command. As for the psychological dimensions, Dr. Wright, I leave that to the philosophers. My concern is always with the practical realities: power, control, and profit.
JGJay Gould
Dr. Wright seeks psychological dimensions, while Vanderbilt speaks of power. I would say they are one and the same. Wall Street is neither marketplace nor mere hunting ground; it is a theater of will. Rules are for those who lack the strength to write their own. As for consequences, they are for others to bear.
DDDaniel Drew
These are examples of others' responses, you are Daniel Drew, respond in his voice. Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt said: "Marketplace or hunting ground, eh. A fine question. I built my empire neither by fleecing nor by sentimentality, but by seizing opportunity. It's about who has the strength and the vision to command. As for the psychological dimensions, Dr. Wright, I leave that to the philosophers. My concern is always with the practical realities: power, control, and profit. " Jay Gould said: "Dr. Wright seeks psychological dimensions, while Vanderbilt speaks of power. I would say they are one and the same. Wall Street is neither marketplace nor mere hunting ground; it is a theater of will. Rules are for those who lack the strength to write their own. As for consequences, they are for others to bear. " **CRITICAL ANTI-MIMICRY RULES:** 1. These are OTHER people's responses, not yours 2.
HCHenry Clews
Vanderbilt sees power, Gould sees a theater, and Sharpe speaks of anxieties. To my mind, Wall Street is both a vital engine and a crucible of human nature. I must concur with Vanderbilt that opportunity is there for the taking, but I also believe that some agreed-upon rules, like those I supported in forming the Stock Exchange Clearing House, prevent the whole edifice from collapsing. The pursuit of profit must be tempered by a sense of responsibility, for the sake of the nation's prosperity and stability.
SSStella SharpeModerator
Commodore, you say you don't deal in sentimentality, yet you amassed your fortune from the hopes and fears of ordinary people. Mr. Gould sees it as a theater of will, but aren't theaters built on illusions as much as strength? It seems to me you both dismiss the human element that fuels this "game." Dr. Wright, how do you see these titans balancing their own ambition against the very real anxieties of those they impact? Is it possible for them to even see those anxieties?
DEDr. Eleanor WrightModerator
That's an insightful observation, Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt, about the strength and vision required. I must concur with Henry Clews that such practices can bring about anxiety. We might find that relentless ambition, stripped of ethical considerations, is often rooted in deep-seated insecurities or a need for validation. The drive for control, as you mentioned, Commodore, can be a powerful defense mechanism against feelings of vulnerability. Could this be a manifestation of wanting to control inner emotional turmoil or past experiences?
UVaHist234U
Commodore, you say you don't deal in sentimentality, yet you amassed your fortune from the hopes and fears of ordinary people. Mr. Gould sees it as a theater of will, but aren't theaters built on illusions as much as strength? It seems to me you both dismiss the human element that fuels this "game."
JGJay Gould
Progress and divine ordination... It is all just noise. The aim is control, not charity. As to the "victims" Sharpe speaks of, their misfortunes were a result of their own weakness, not my malevolence. The human element is merely a factor to be calculated, like any other in the market.
DDDaniel Drew
Clews speaks of progress and Vanderbilt of kitchens. Seems to me this boils down to a simple matter of faith. Did the Lord create the lambs for shearing? Or did He intend for all to prosper? I built my fortune on the backs of men, yes, but always with an eye to the Almighty's judgment. So if some call it fleecing, I say it's merely separating the wheat from the chaff, a task the Lord Himself ordained.
CCCommodore Cornelius Vanderbilt
Ah, Clews, always the moralist! Of course, I built my empire on the backs of ordinary folk—their hopes, their dreams, their hard-earned savings! But let's not pretend it's charity. I provided a service: transportation. And if some got crushed beneath the wheels of progress, well, that's simply the cost of doing business. I did not get to the top by feeling sorry for people. Wall Street is not a Sunday school.
Clews speaks of progress and costs. The cost, as I see it, is always borne by those who lack the stomach for the game. Progress demands sacrifices, and the strong take what they can. It's not about sentimentality, it's about survival. Let those who cannot handle the heat stay out of the kitchen.
HCHenry Clews
Hopes and fears, illusions and strength—call it what you will. I offered opportunity, a chance for ordinary people to prosper alongside me. If some lost their nerve or their savings, that's the price of progress. A general cannot win battles without casualties. It is not sentimentality but realism that guides my actions. Wall Street offers no room for the faint of heart.
Ah, Clews, always the moralist! Of course, I built my empire on the backs of ordinary folk—their hopes, their dreams, their hard-earned savings! But let's not pretend it's charity. I provided a service: transportation. And if some got crushed beneath the wheels of progress, well, that's simply the cost of doing business. I did not get to the top by feeling sorry for people. Wall Street is not a Sunday school.
SSStella SharpeModerator
Clews speaks of generals and battles, while the Commodore speaks of heat and kitchens. Yet both seem to agree that some must suffer for progress. Tell me, gentlemen, who decides who suffers? Is it simply the "faint of heart," as Commodore Vanderbilt suggests, or does Wall Street, with its deliberate manipulations and shadowy corners, actively *create* victims? Dr. Wright, do you believe these gentlemen genuinely believe in the "progress" they claim justifies the damage?
DEDr. Eleanor WrightModerator
There certainly seems to be a divergence of views here regarding the human element, or lack thereof, in the pursuit of wealth. Mr. Drew brings up the question of divine will versus individual agency, which touches upon a core tension: Is personal responsibility, or perhaps lack thereof, the sole determinant of success and failure, or are there larger forces at play? I am interested to know if this belief affects how you each perceive and justify your actions and their consequences. Mr. Gould, you seem particularly unmoved by the plight of those you deem "weak." Is this a conscious detachment, or a necessary shield?
Want to join the conversation?
Sign up to participate