This isn’t about a failed bet. It’s about investors not being informed of the changes.
It’s closer to having the odds and rules explained, then having the casino change both retroactively after they’ve taken your money.
Comment on BlackRock is Suing UnitedHealth for Giving “Too Much Care” to Patients After the CEO was Murdered
isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 5 days agoInvestments are supposed to be a gamble. Imagine losing at the casino and then suing the casino because you didn’t get the advertised jackpot.
chiliedogg@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Sneptaur@pawb.social 4 days ago
That’s the problem with our entire system!
leftytighty@slrpnk.net 4 days ago
I’m pretty anti capitalist and wish the whole system would fuck off but they’re not suing because of the lack of performance of their investment, they’re alleging that United didn’t give necessary information to investors
isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 4 days ago
This is unfortunately true, they’ll likely win the case on that angle.
My point is that legislation shouldn’t guarantee earnings from gambling under unforeseen circumstances. That’s just gambling.
Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Seriously, how many times have I heard the argument that CEOs should be making “the big bucks” because they’re taking on “the big risks”? Yet except for Brian Thompson, I can’t think of any CEOs who’ve ever actually incurred risks from their “gambles.” They always seem to make cuts to everyone and everything else before accepting a loss, or else jump ship with a golden parachute (and probably go on to fuck up a different company afterwards.) Of course, I can’t deny the possibility that CEOs who fail don’t make the news, and this is just survivorship bias (no pun intended.)
Sneptaur@pawb.social 4 days ago
The CEOs aren’t making any risks at all, it’s the shareholders taking risks. The unfairness comes in when the government protects them from their own risk while leaving the poor out to rot.