No, it's completely ethical. It's calling out fraud. He wasn't the one that did wrong to the British people, it was the Bank of England that did. It actually lead to a stronger economy as now the Brits were out of the ERM and stopped supporting the German's low interest rates, and also lead to a rise of Euroscepticism in Britain.
Do you honestly think that was his goal? Even if it was, it doesn't change the fact that his actions ruined lives.
Goal isn't what I'm looking into here. Just the end result. And the end result of this action was that yes, some people were harmed, but in the long run it actually brought stability and growth to the UK economy as they left the ERM. Basically, since the UK left (which they never should have been in in the first place), they were able to tailor interest rates to control inflation and stabilize the economy, instead of pinning it to the Germans. They were able to lower interest rates by half, from 12% to 6%, which boosted the economy and increased employment. And for 15 years from then, until the 2007 financial crisis, Great Britain went through an economic boom.
...Right, I forgot; you're an anarcho capitalist. You don't believe in ethics when it comes to turning a profit; anything goes, in your mind.
No, I mean, even if I wasn't an Ancap morally, Black Wednesday was a misnomer. I mean, even on the wikipedia page, it mentions that conservatives felt it should be renamed to golden Wednesday. This did huge positives long term to the UK economy.
I'm sorry; I can't agree with that logic. The ends never justify the means; especially when the means are the goal, while the ends are merely unintended consequence.
The means was calling bullshit on fraud and a horrible decision. That's moral. The ends were Soros getting rich, the UK basically giving him money, while the UK's horrible decision was stopped, having predictably good results. If only one could short other horrible government decisions and stop them from happening.
Suffice to say; I don't agree, and I can't see myself ever agreeing with you on this.
Let me tell you a story of a dragon that periodically goes out and attacks hamlets. Then, a greedy knight comes and kills it just to make some money from all the treasure it has in its lair. During the fight, a village is attacks, and a bunch of people are hurt, but in the future everyone is now safe from the dragon for the next decade in a half, and prosperity reigns in the kingdom.
Again; I don't agree, and I probably never will.
Please tell me what evil you think he did though. Your complaint makes no sense.
Just because some sort of collapse would have happened anyway, it does not absolve him of his guilt for doing what he did.
He single-handedly threw the UK into a recession, forcing the British people to pay for the mistakes of their government, while also enriching himself in the process; from my perspective, that is an evil thing to do.
No, the opposite is true. The recession started in 1989, and continued until 1993. Unemployment and inflation had already been prior to that, while Britain had no means to control it because of the ERM.
www.theguardian.com
I hate to admit it, but I have to concede your point; it was inaccurate of me to assert that he caused the recession. That said, I remain unconvinced of the morality of his actions. He still ended up with a great deal of money that by rights belonged to the British taxpayer, not him. He may have only taken advantage of a situation the UK government created, but that does not make him a hero.No, the opposite is true. The recession started in 1989, and continued until 1993. Unemployment and inflation had already been prior to that, while Britain had no means to control it because of the ERM.
In fact, Black Wednesday and the leaving of the ERM was one of the way the UK got out of the recession.
Here's more on it:
Norman Tebbit: An electoral curse yet to be lifted
Norman Tebbit: Liberation from the ERM was a blessing that fell into Labour's lap.