this post was submitted on 01 Jun 2025
257 points (99.6% liked)
Leopards Ate My Face
6691 readers
203 users here now
Rules:
- The mods are fallible; if you've been banned or had a post/comment removed, please appeal.
- Off-topic posts will be removed. If you don't know what "Leopards ate my Face" is, try reading this post.
- If the reason your post is on-topic isn't in the article or self-explanatory, you must use a second (high-quality) source to explain why your post fits the criteria.
- Articles should be high-quality sources. For a rough idea, check out this list. If it's marked in red, it probably isn't allowed; if it's yellow, exercise caution.
- For accessibility reasons, an image of text must either have alt text or a transcription in the post body.
- Reposts within 1 year or the Top 100 of all time are subject to removal.
- This is not exclusively a US politics community. You're encouraged to post stories about anyone from any place in the world at any point in history as long as you meet the other rules.
- All Lemmy.World Terms of Service apply.
Also feel free to check out !leopardsatemyface@lemm.ee (also active).
Icon credit C. Brück on Wikimedia Commons.
_portrait.jpg){kind=link}
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can you imagine your entire job being forecasting what other people's intentions are and making decisions based on it, and being so shit at it that you decide to prop up a guy that's openly saying he's going to obliterate the international economic system that makes your job easy?
Some day you will realize that almost nothing C-suites do really makes any difference and they are there just to absorb blame and be a figurehead
Absorb blame assumes they would face consequences when things go wrong.
They do. They get fired from their cushy jobs and land with a golden parachute.
I don't believe they're that worried about it. A lot of people made a lot of money buying up 'distressed' assets after the GFC with the cheap credit available. If you're wealthy enough, you make money when things are going well, and you buy up anything that's on the market when there's a downturn (preferably with subsidies/cheap credit provided by the government).
If you don't need to have the income from a job to live off, the business cycle doesn't really affect you, it's all play money where you can be on any side of a trade.
I cannot, in fact, imagine this. Not in any way close to what the reality apparently is, anyway.
The other option was friendlier to billionaires and CEOs, but had the downside of bringing expected stagnation. Probably they judged that this variant has a better average expectation or whatever.