> designing complex financial products
who's to say it wasn't useful? after all, somebody paid for this complex financial products, so objectively speaking, they must have found it useful enough to have paid for it.
who's to say it wasn't useful? after all, somebody paid for this complex financial products, so objectively speaking, they must have found it useful enough to have paid for it.
Wealthy people pay for this engineering because it helps maintain and increase their wealth. That’s about it. There is zero societal benefit from something like a CDO.
> what “objectively useful” means.
what contradictory beliefs you hold.
You are making a subjective value judgement (your own) on what makes something beneficial to society, and yet claim that the actual objective measure - that of using money to measure value - is not what "objectively useful" means.
Value to society isn't an objective measure. Otherwise, social workers and charity would be rolling in money.
This is obvious if you consider another example. Imagine a marketplace for hitmen. Clearly some people would pay for such a thing. Does that make it useful? Maybe? Does that mean we should think it’s a good thing? Probably not.