Obsequitariat: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil|}}{{d|Obsequitariat|/əˈbsiːkwɪˈteərɪət/|n|}} | {{a|devil|{{image|Water scarcity|png|Well I guess you could, but not taking kickbacks is good too.}} | ||
}}{{d|Obsequitariat|/əˈbsiːkwɪˈteərɪət/|n|}} | |||
The 99% who are in it for the ride, the crumbs and the crusts of bread that fall from the tables of the fortunate. | The 99% who are in it for the ride, the crumbs and the crusts of bread that fall from the tables of the fortunate. | ||
They who will swoon at the {{plainlink|https://www.linkedin.com/company/credit-suisse/posts| | They who will swoon uncynically at the righteous {{plainlink|https://www.linkedin.com/company/credit-suisse/posts|social media outputs of po-faced wealth managers}}; who will like, them love them, be inspired by them, share them, but never wonder whether they aren’t, to put it in the kindest way, a blatant misdirection from the real inner life of the organisations from whom they emanate? | ||
To be sure, | To be sure, the ''cause de justice sociale du jour'' are doubtless laudable, of great currency, and it is true that the financial services industry has badly failed many constiuences in its unstoried history, some more ''à la mode'' than others. | ||
The point here is not to throw ''shade'' on these causes and the difficult issues they present — though they deserve a more careful and nuanced treatment than one can expect from a Twitter feed — but, in a | The point here is not to throw ''shade'' on these causes and the difficult issues they present — though they deserve a more careful and nuanced treatment than one can expect from a [[Twitter]] feed — but, in a where executives are literally committing espionage on each other, making billion-dollar losses in a quick but unrelated successions, sustaining criminal enforcements for wire fraud, bribes and corruption against governments, NGOs and charitable purposes from Malaysia to Mozambique — to ask, “does this not suggest that the industry has rather taken its eye off the ball?” | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Virtue signalling]] | |||
*[[Change paradox]] | |||
Latest revision as of 00:18, 29 March 2023
|
Obsequitariat
/əˈbsiːkwɪˈteərɪət/ (n.)
The 99% who are in it for the ride, the crumbs and the crusts of bread that fall from the tables of the fortunate.
They who will swoon uncynically at the righteous social media outputs of po-faced wealth managers; who will like, them love them, be inspired by them, share them, but never wonder whether they aren’t, to put it in the kindest way, a blatant misdirection from the real inner life of the organisations from whom they emanate?
To be sure, the cause de justice sociale du jour are doubtless laudable, of great currency, and it is true that the financial services industry has badly failed many constiuences in its unstoried history, some more à la mode than others.
The point here is not to throw shade on these causes and the difficult issues they present — though they deserve a more careful and nuanced treatment than one can expect from a Twitter feed — but, in a where executives are literally committing espionage on each other, making billion-dollar losses in a quick but unrelated successions, sustaining criminal enforcements for wire fraud, bribes and corruption against governments, NGOs and charitable purposes from Malaysia to Mozambique — to ask, “does this not suggest that the industry has rather taken its eye off the ball?”