Look at it from a software perspective: there was a huge vulnerability possible. If it hadn't been exploited by this person, someone else would have.
It was the Bank of England fault for not patching the exploit and creating the vulnerability.
See the problem? There's a reason it's illegal to exploit vulnerabilities in software. It's even illegal to exploit them in humans (mostly). It's called fraud.
But that isn't a good comparison for this case as what he did was not illegal. Unlike hitting people with steel pipes.
Our pipe-wielding example will just find another victim without a helmet. You can always find something a victim could have done differently, the only common thread is the perpetrator.
Also legality isn't a proxy for morality. Slavery was illegal. Some societies allowed cannibalism. What Soros did had a human cost and the fact someone else might have done the same financial alchemy had he not doesn't excuse it.
As for the pipe and helmet example. The laws and ways of upholding them are the metaphorical helmet that we put on to protect ourselves against pipe wielders.
The perpetrator will do what it wants to do, we can protect ourselves with laws, law enforcement, education or physical armour. Or do you expect the pipe wielder to stop because they were told what they are doing is bad or amoral?
Lots of society still relies on people behaing well overall with the few outliers being ostracized or outlawed when they don't.
Not true. Unrealistic pegs paired with reams of floating-rate debt always break. See the Asian and Russian Financial Crises [1][2].
We discuss those as financial crises, not a man breaking a central bank, because they (a) don’t have a narratively-convenient antagonist and (b) aren’t Western central banks.
[1] https://www.britannica.com/event/Asian-financial-crisis
[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Russian_financial_crisi...
I’ve only ever heard this line of reasoning used to justify something unethical.
And in the case of software, we don’t admire the black-hat hackers that take advantage of exploits, do we? In fact, in that case it’s not even legal…
That doesn't mean it's not true. Soros's actions ending the peg helped the british people, whose government was throwing away billions of pounds trying to sustain the unsustainable peg.
I also think that when people characterize moves like this as ‘brilliant’ it does a disservice to the word. I think many folks, if they tuned their attention to opportunities like this, had the big name firms in their Rolodex, and had questionable ethics, could have made this move. Maybe I’m missing it, but this seems like a pretty straightforward way to take advantage of the system.
You can marvel at the technical ingenuity of a heist like this but the ethics are dubious. The strongest counter is that the Bank of England wasn’t paying attention but that’s mildly victim claiming just like it would be if a company fell prey to a novel 0-day software exploit.
Do you let your counterparty know that you are willing to pay or sell at a price that is more beneficial to them?
- George Soros and all the funds and banks that participated in this large-scale attack were then able to repay the loans they had taken out in sterling, but with a devalued pound against the US dollar -
He was just the "ring leader", as it were. To date, no one had been able to coalesce all the necessary players into a single room and get them on the same page before in order to pull off such a thing. He was a proverbial shepherd corralling a bag of cats in order to make this scheme work.
Callous and greedy, sure. Intelligent and legal all the same. Blame the law makers for this one if you don't like the outcome. Their shortsightedness and allowances of quick, speculative, money-making bubbles to prop up fraudulent banking systems had a lot to do with this.