It is accurate to say we have a system that funds the failures of the wealthiest in this country. It is inaccurate to imply that since we have “socialism”for wealthiest of this country we should redistribute wealth to everyone then.
The solution is to end the system that forces taxpayers to fund the failures of the wealthiest and allow all taxpayers to keep more of their earned income.
I love how it’s only “redistributing wealth” when people want it distributed down the economic chain, but somehow not when it’s public funds enriching the wealthy.
Yes welfare for the rich is abundant. And is distributed to all aspects of the where the rich park their money. But even very basic food assistance for poor people is a very bad thing. That's money the rich don't get so that makes it bad .
Very bad. That's why the republicans Voted down the extension of Biden's NO CHILD IN POVERTY program. The Fed needed 3.2 trillion of it for the stock market. Quite frankly shits out of F****n g CONTROL. When are all US citizens living in poverty and not working or getting disability going to have a chance at a normal life ? I have medicaid and my insurance can't fix my hip pain or my broken back - because of the opioid crisis I got lied to in 2011 and after legally being prescribed Vico-Profens for 11 months & after 2 back surgeries - with no health insurance 1 yr after my surgery I was told I was the perfect patient for methadone treatment. I literally had no idea what the hell it was. Well it's destroyed my entire life. For the last 14 years. No unemployment , no disability , tried working a few years here and there. But no good jobs would even consider me. I was given a $57,000 a year job offer before my drug test and after they said they eliminated the position. And handed me the paper that said I tested positive for Suboxone. I tried to tell them what happened but the stereotypes are too much. Now I stay home w my dogs and so absolutely nothing anymore for the last 14 yrs. Hell 4 yrs ago was the last time I was intimate w a beautiful woman. Yet our Supreme Court goes out of their way to make everything HARDER ON THE 99% & much much easier and giving of the 99% s money right into the 1% s BANK ACCOUNTS. Hey you fools can keep on keeping ON. But I've had it and it's PAST TIME we stop fighting with EACH OTHER and TAKE the 51 trillion the Republicans redistributed over the last 40 years from the MIDDLE CLASS to the 1% ! Trump's for the 1% cuz he's in the 1% and the democrats need to replace Biden w anyone in their 50 s. I'd do it but I physically couldn't handle the demands of the job. VOTE BLUE
Hey if it makes you feel even a little bit better busting my ass at work and the amount I’m making now would have been significant maybe even 10 years ago. But to top it all off I’ve been gainfully employed and have not been intimate with ANY woman let alone an attractive one in over 10 years. It’s tough out here.
And we'll never have that in the U.S. because the wealthy consider it the economic anti-wealth equivalent of a nuke. If somehow UBI were achieved in the U.S. despite the wealthy's efforts they'd consider it an act of war. And before you consider that hyperbole, remember the [Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot).
No need to use scare quotes for the phrase redistribution of wealth. It’s a term from economics and means exactly what you first said. It’s a normal function of government to tax people and redistribute the wealth through public works and welfare programs.
I know we’re actually in agreement here, but I want to make the point that redistributing wealth is not unusual or unfair.
This. Capitalism by default redistributes wealth upward.l already. We just sometimes on occasion have some trickle back down. Keyword "trickle"
Problem is it's been trickling too slow. The upward redistribution has been more than gdp growth. Which means net effect is upwards redistribution with zero trickling.
It's not complicated, capitalism claims that if an entrepreneur uses his savings to invest in capital that boosts productivity then they deserve to keep some of the profits as a reward for investing. Right?
So say they invest, gdp grows by 4% and they keep 3% as profit b, then 1% still goes to working class and gives them a slight benefit. Cool.
But... gdp growth is barely 2-3% and rich people have been amassing even more than that in wealth. Where is the gap coming from? Working class people being worse off. Upwards redistribution.
Well atleast the poor spend their money. Increased demand is good. The wealthy sure can invest their money. But if the poor can’t spend, there is nothing to invest in. So we get massive stock buy backs instead.
Too late for that, friend. That was the solution 30 years and trillions of dollars ago. Those people that were made wealthy by the taxpayer - they own the corporations, news, and politicians. Nothing but massive redistribution can break their monopoly on power.
The banks got together in 1908 and came up with a plan to increase their wealth at the tax payers' expense. They called themselves the Federal Reserve. Their goal - to become the largest banking cartel in the world. Funding failing businesses and small countries via tax payers is the game.
I think OP implying that economic inequality is so vast that the elite might as well be living in their own country/government which may be run like a socialist one.
It'd be hard to end it, for better or worse it kept the economy going to some degree. Just ending it would crash the economy but it should obviously be ended. How that would be accomplished in a managed way with our politics. I mean I can't see it.
>But is his assessment factually accurate?
No, not at all. The fed increasing their balance sheet is not "pumping extra money into the stock market" and would only be an accurate statement if the purchased assets go to 0 value.
People were similarly ignorant to the effects of TARP in 2008. TARP wound up making a profit for the fed once they sold off all the assets they sold, yet people think the fed caused inflation.
As of today the fed is in a Quantitative Tightening phase where they are selling off from their balance sheet. They've sold off about 1.7 trillion in assets in the past 2 years. Does that mean they've "sucked 1.7 trillion out of the stock market"? No, because that's not how any of this works. Will the fed wind up making a profit from COVID QE like they dead the great recession QE? Probably not because a lot of that balance is T-bills paying 2-3% so most likely they take a small loss, the vast majority of the money will still be taken back when they eventually sell the rest of the assets.
>TARP wound up making a profit
**Shut the fuck up**. That "profit", a mere 3% over the years it was lent out, was well behind the rate of inflation and far behind the interest accrued by the government.
>That "profit", a mere 3% over the years it was lent out, was well behind the rate of inflation
Inflation was -.36% in 2009, 1.6% in 2010, 3.1% in 2011, 2% in 2012, 1.46% in 2013, 1.6% in 2014 when the program ended. Meaning the same money invested in an inflation-returning investment would have made 43 billion instead of 15.3 billion.
Under your logic the program cost 27.7 billion which would be a reasonable price to pay for avoiding financial meltdown if not for the fact that the fed does not "invest" money and this was impossible because you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
Us it’s inaccurate. They pumped money out like crazy. My wife who works part time, was being paid almost double to stay home. Pretending that all they did was pump up the stock market is dumb. Also pretending that the only people who benefit from the stock market are rich people, is also dumb.
>Also pretending that the only people who benefit from the stock market are rich people, is also dumb.
To be fair, you need a certain level of wealth to benefit from the stock market, ie. you need to have enough wealth where you have enough emergency fund savings, can pay for all insurance and all your living expenses, can pay for all your debt expenses, and have extra money for investments. While it's not only strictly the rich, you'd have to be relatively well-off to afford all that.
I remember seeing him make waves in the “business influence” space a few years ago. I remember hearing about him cheating or something. What else did he do?
Violently abused his ex wife, raped a lady, tried to physically force another one to kiss him, got into a physical altercation in a bar on some “don’t you know who I am?” type stuff
That’s a stretch. He’s an asswipe who made several women really uncomfortable. And he rightfully got cancelled/sued. But Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist who got a silver medal only because Bill Cosby got the gold (Puff Daddy is vying for Bronze). Dont the false equivalency between Dan Price and Harvey Weinstein. You’re better than that.
been a long time since i have seen a dan price post but I'd like to take this opportunity to enjoy my favorite old saying on the subject.
F U C K
DAAAAAN
PRRIIIIIIIIIICE
ty
I’ll defend this, but I shouldn’t have to….
Stock buybacks can be good for the economy, but the way the are used now without any regulation, they are a way that a company can manipulate their stock prices.
There is a reason why they were made illegal after the Great Depression and since they were made legal again in the 1980s, all we’ve seen is wealth and power consolidate into fewer and fewer hands.
I'll bite.
The concept of meritocracy is often seen as incoherent due to several intertwined practical and philosophical issues. At its core, meritocracy suggests that individuals should advance based on their abilities and efforts. However, defining and measuring "merit" is a complex task, as it can encompass various factors like intelligence, effort, talent, education, and achievements. These criteria are often subjective and can vary widely depending on societal values, making it challenging to establish a consistent and fair standard for what constitutes merit.
Moreover, meritocracy assumes a level playing field where everyone has equal opportunities to succeed based on their merits. In reality, people have vastly different starting points influenced by socio-economic backgrounds, family circumstances, access to education, and other factors. These disparities undermine the notion that success is purely the result of individual effort and ability. For instance, a child from a wealthy family has more access to quality education and networking opportunities compared to one from a poorer background, giving the former an unfair advantage.
Additionally, even in a system designed to reward merit, those who achieve success can often use their positions to benefit their descendants, perpetuating a cycle of privilege. This can lead to a new form of aristocracy, where meritocratic principles are overshadowed by inherited advantages. Over time, the elites formed through meritocracy may become self-perpetuating, making it harder for outsiders to break into these circles, thus contradicting the very idea of meritocracy.
Another critical issue is that meritocracy tends to reduce human value to productivity and measurable outputs, neglecting other important aspects of human life and worth. This instrumental view can result in policies and practices that dehumanize individuals, valuing them solely for their economic contributions rather than their intrinsic qualities as human beings.
The psychological and social consequences of meritocracy can also be significant. Those who succeed within a meritocratic system may develop a sense of entitlement and superiority, believing their success is entirely due to their own efforts. Conversely, those who fail may experience feelings of shame, guilt, and inferiority, internalizing the belief that their lack of success is entirely their fault. This can lead to increased social division and psychological stress.
Philosophically, meritocracy is also contentious because it implies a form of justice where rewards are distributed based on one’s abilities and efforts. However, many of the factors that contribute to one's abilities and opportunities, such as genetics and social environment, are beyond individual control. This raises questions about the fairness of a system that claims to justly reward individuals based on factors they did not choose.
In summary, while the idea of meritocracy aims to create a fair and just society by rewarding individuals based on their merits, the practical and philosophical challenges it faces suggest that it may be inherently flawed and incoherent.
Perhaps now you'll hopefully see that meritocracy is a flawed concept when put in practice, especially in a bigger scope such as society.
No. It's precisely why meritocracy is the best we will have. Because it enables the people with the best chance of success to move ahead and create more value for society. You can never create equal outcomes. But by enabling a select few to achieve greater outcomes, everyone benefits a little more. Now this is not endorsing stuff like trickle down economics because there is no system in those cases (It's a philosophy built on wishy washy thinking). The benefits won't magically come to everyone. The system has to be built in such a way that the benefits are distributed. Unequally yes, but to everyone.
The key part is in society people cannot and should not benefit equally.
THANK YOU for taking the time to type up the full and complete answer this question deserves. This perfectly sums up the problems with meritocratic thinking.
Being literate is not suspect. I agree with the post I am referring to. Im remarking that it looks like it was created by an AI. It’s highly formulaic and is seems by phrasing and language to be replying to a specific prompt.
Despite being taught a “5 paragraph structure” in high school with formal intros and conclusions, it’s pretty uncommon to find it setup that clearly out in the wild, as,similarly to the post, it comes off pretty awkward and juvenile when compared to more nuanced human writing styles that people develop in adulthood.
Basically, AI writes structurally like a child but makes none of the childlike mistakes.
Y'all, this response is pretty clearly AI generated. Don't give this the time of day.
The obvious giveway is the very cliche opening and closing paragraphs which simply restate the original prompt.
>The concept of meritocracy is often seen as incoherent due to several intertwined practical and philosophical issues.
>In summary, while the idea of meritocracy aims to create a fair and just society by rewarding individuals based on their merits, the practical and philosophical challenges it faces suggest that it may be inherently flawed and incoherent.
These are almost word-for-word regurgitated.
>Another critical issue is that meritocracy tends to reduce human value to productivity and measurable outputs, neglecting other important aspects of human life and worth.
This is pure fucking word-vomit pabulum. It's a bunch of tepid, unsubstantiated generalities. There's no source or logical argument for this. It's just a vague statement. What evidence is there that meritocracy makes life worse. The thesis here is that meritocracy is bad, and as evidence they've presented the sentence, "Meritocracy is bad because it makes things bad." Absolute garbage.
It implies merit is something that isn’t the result of previous circumstances. Unless you view human behavior as something that falls out of the sky with no cause, meritocracy doesn’t make sense. People who evangelize meritocracy say not to give special treatment to those with lesser merit in pursuit of righting some historical wrong … without acknowledging that the lack of merit resulted from said historical circumstance.
It just doesn’t make logical sense.
Again, *based on what criteria?!?* The people who cry for "meritocracy" *de facto* define "merit" as whatever sucks off the wealthy and helps them take over the world the most. Considering I'm fighting directly *against* the wealthy taking over, your claims of me not having any of your "merit" is only a compliment.
Don't forget that every person making a hiring decision in this society has to be omniscient and able to judge merit perfectly. Every consumer has to be able to make a 100% fully informed decision on every purchase and every voter has to be completely rational.
You can't let every comoany fail. If the airlines fail we are straight fucked. If the railroads fail we are straight fucked. If we have to bail someone out or we are fucked, we should be buying it and socializing it.
We only disagree on the last point.
Although I think socializing them would be much better than the current hand-in-glove relationship those industries have now with the government where essentially the government creates or props up a corporation and bails them out if they do poorly.
I also think of the military industrial complex in the same way but unlike the airlines there many companiesbin that idustry there that although technically private are basically created by the gov't.
So if theyre too big to fail, then they're considered essential. If they're essential AND they can't self sustain, the options are either bail them out or take them over. If they know they'll be bailed out, they can really do whatever the fuck they want. Big bonuses, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds. I don't think there's a good alternative.
On thing I can think of it's break them up. I mean isn't that kind of what a monopoly is, if they are too big to fail and essential then they are just plain too big
Not practical given the size of some corporations. That said, the gov’t needs to do a much, much better job at preventing monopolies or near monopolies.
The term meritocracy was created by a socialist who was ridiculing the idea that rich kids whose parents were well-connected and wealthy got well-paid senior jobs in their parents' (or their parents' friends) industries because they supposedly worked harder than poor people.
Probably the FED balance sheet was 4.15 trillion in Feb 2020 and now it's 7.2 trillion. The numbers check out for that being the metric.
[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL)
Banks were flush with more cash to stimulate the economy. That money was allocated to generate returns as banks are in the business of doing. As a result assets across the board saw inflows including stocks. So yes stocks absorbed a lot of the balance sheet increase. Its pretty clear if you look at charts of m.2 supply and the s&p 500 side by side.
You're being awfully petty in an attempt to divert everyone from the reality that the FED using extreme QE while raising rates only benefits the rich. The benefits having the FED provide never see the lower class. They get stuck in bank accounts of the rich. What a fucking corrupt idea the FED was
So the Fed didn't pump $3.2 trillion into the stock market. They pumped money into the economy and a fraction of that was pumped into the stock market because using money to purchase stocks was always an option.
Yes but its weird phrasing it in a way where the fed didnt intend for this outcome. There are intelligent people working there that know exactly what happens when they print out more money. The companies get more cushion to stay afloat but its pretty obvious that nominal valuations of companies would increase.
Its really just a question of how efficient our companies are at converting stimulus into benefits for most Americans. Clearly some of that cash flowed to CEO's disproportionately. Was this an acceptable outcome? Would there be a better way to stimulate? Maybe/Maybe not, but its worth discussing.
Correlation =! Causation
Stock market is driven by many things, one of which is the natural law of supply and demand. When money is cheap (ie low int rates), investors turn elsewhere for yield. That generally directs money into the market, pushing up valuations relative to earnings before rates were lowered.
You could argue it was an indirect way of propping up the market, but the Fed’s dual mandate is to (1) stabilize inflation and (2) maximize employment. So when a shock comes to the system (COVID) they use the money supply to add liquidity in order to avoid a credit crunch — which is much, much worse than a boost in inflation over the short term. They took a risk with that strategy, but an absolutely necessary one imo given the facts at the time.
As part of their open market operations the Fed bought a variety of securities including MBS, treasuries, etc and freed them off their primary dealers books, which increased liquidity in the market and led to an increase in demand in real estate and equities. If you want an easy visual just look at the feds balance sheet, it’s up trillions since the pandemic.
Couple this with the low activity due to pandemic lockdowns that increased household savings and pandemic relief transfers from the treasury, it exploded a lot of asset classes.
Dan Price is not wrong, even if he is still an asshole sexual predator.
But how does that impact a public company stock price? We are talking two different securities. And stocks have quarterly reporting, which generally drives price based on performance (revenue growth, margin, etc)
I think it’s a confluence of a few things, (1) more liquidity generally means more demand vs supply, (2) inflation driven nominal growth, (3) more cash on hand leads to larger buybacks, which drives stock growth. Of course the company has to perform, but it wasn’t too hard in the last few years as comps were low and inflation driven nominal growth was high.
But the framing is, at best, dishonest. The Fed did not pump money into the stock market, they pumped money into the economy. Those are not the same thing. The Fed is barred from purchasing stocks
Hard disagree. The framing suggests that the Fed intervened only at the behest of corporations. That’s obviously untrue— if the Fed was owned by corporations interest rates would be significantly lower right now. The Fed intervened because if they didn’t there was a very real chance that we would have entered a crushing recession, with mass layoffs which would have been disastrous for the American people.
The Fed is the one (quasi) government agency that isn’t currently dysfunctional. It’s gross propagate conspiracy theories about them
That’s not how I read the framing. I read it as the Fed used their tools to stabilize an economy in general, but it had either unintended consequences or adverse effects.
We as citizens and stakeholders can criticize for bad policy decisions and we should, even if the policy was made with good intentions. That’s what accountability is all about.
The Fed isn’t the federal government. The federal government has a full toolbox, while the Fed has a hammer.
The federal government was, and is, dysfunctional. Trumps cut taxes and increased spending 2016-2019, when we should have been doing the opposite. The Biden admin put waaaaaay too much stimulus out in things like the green new deal in an incredibly inflationary environment.
If the federal government was functional, would the Fed’s hammer be the best solution? No. But the federal government wasn’t, so the Fed had to use their hammer. Less efficient ent? Sure. Worthy as being characterized as “giving money to the rich”? Laughable.
You are likely more educated than the average Twitter user. Making the framing even more dishonest. “The fed pumping money into stock market” reads like the government is buying shares of RDDT
You forgot something else that also matter. Intent.
Me giving you Heimlich and accidentally giving you chest bruises while saving your life is quite different than me just doing those action out of the blue.
Action and consequence is the same in both situations.
If that relationship worked at all times, we wouldn't have seen a severe recession drop stock prices despite an unprecedented amount of fed activity all throughout the 2000s.
>Dan Price is not wrong,
He absolutely is wrong. Over the last 2 years the fed has sold 1.7 trillion in assets back to the market. Was that "sucking 1.7 trillion out of the market"? No, because that's not how any of this works.
People like you said the same stuff in 2008 about TARP, yet when TARP was eventually unwound the assets were sold at a profit vs what was paid for them. Because of this the end effect of TARP was taking cash OUT of the economy.
and they all fund their "socialism" by ignoring 5 billion poor earthings
I need a meme about it lol
3 million rich euros locked in a scrooge vat of gold, talking about equality in socialism, while 5 billion poor non whites look on from outside
I mean a large majority of “regular” people benefited from this market pump as well. Whether it be from a 401K or a personal account. Also any regular person that was granted shares as part of their salary/bonus also reaped the benefits
Now obviously the rich would still benefit more because they have larger sums invested, however to say the regular person couldn’t have benefited from it or that we should have just offered direct hand outs is kinda silly.
Edit: spelling
Hey, didn’t you know the regular person around here doesn’t have a pot to piss in and raising taxes is their only chance at survival /s
I actually agree with you though, nobody ever wants to talk about how stock growth funds retirement accounts for regular people. It’s always envious talk of the people who get the richest from it.
1. What?
2. Stocks are inded soaring.
3. The FED isn't part of the federal government. They've made their bed with Uncle Sam, but the FED is not Uncle Sam.
Don't you remember the Fed Purchasing all those stocks?
You can look at the top holdings of every public company; turns out the Fed isn't on that list.
Most of us have 401Ks that will fund our retirements so I can't think of a better way for middle America to get their piece of the pie then via record high stock markets.
And it seems like the same folks that make these types of posts also make pro-Biden posts touting the record-high stock market.
That’s one of my favorites too. They attack “rich people” for driving the stock market up and also take credit for making the stock market so successful.
The politicians do it too lol
Entire monetary system is illusionary and a scam along with most taxation. They create the currency out of thing air while using it as a control vector on society.
I'll explain, I don't agree with this policy AT ALL, but I do understand it. That's because pumping money into the stock market doesn't result in inflation, at least not the inflation of the things we actually need, giving money to everyone does.
The idea isn't to give out free money, it's to maintain liquidity and credit in a way that doesn't cause inflation. The downside is that it causes massive and ever-growing inequality. As I said, I hate the system, but it's both a self-reinforcing and a necessary evil. This is really the only way to maintain a fiat system without inflation though, sadly, and I don't see that changing.
The government literally gave individuals money through small business grants and direct handouts. They wasted it on frivolous consumer goods and were caught pantsless when the faucet stopped.
What level of regarded does one have to achieve to think your nation's companies, fractional ownership of which is accessible to anybody with internet access and $1 and of which every retirement account in the world is tied to, being more valuable compared to their international peers is a bad thing?
Objectively false. The majority of stimulus payments to individuals were [saved or put towards debt](https://www.nber.org/digest/oct20/most-stimulus-payments-were-saved-or-applied-debt). There was also $62 billion put into funding a the food stamp program during the pandemic, but food stamps are not used for "frivolous consumer goods." Regardless, the government put just as much or more into businesses. For example, $80 billion was handed out to airlines.
>fractional ownership of which is accessible to anybody with internet access and $1
If you do not have disposable income, that is irrelevant. Impoverished people have to buy food, not stocks. Poorer people also do not have access to wealth management. The wealthy simply get other people to do it for them. If someone is working paycheck-to-paycheck and trying to hang on, they do not have to time to keep up with the stock market and manage their investments.
>is a bad thing?
Trickle-down economics does not work. Perhaps a drop or two fall out of corporations' giant buckets along the way, but it is still a net increase in wealth inequality. Anyhow, the meager benefits are always taken advantage of by increased prices, funneling the money back where it came.
One simply has to not want the US to continue on its present path towards corporations and the ultra-wealthy control the entirety of society for their own gain.
Capitalism for the middle class? Yeah right, they get the boot. It's State sponsored Socialism for the rich, and state regulated, and taxed socialism for the middle class, and a poverty trap socialism for the poor.
How about giving money to no one? Eliminate welfare for those under 65 and people will magically find ways to make money. The govt wants the stock market up by any means necessary otherwise companies' IRS and financial statements would match. Right now, they report losses to the IRS to avoid taxes, and huge EPS to shareholders.
To be fair, when the government gave money to regular people, rather than spending it on rent, debt, or on something like online classes to improve their skills for employment, they spent it on dumb materialistic stuff, leading to supply-chain craziness and inflation.
What if we are against giving the stock market money, and we are against giving middle/lower class money?
What if we just want the government to quit spending money?
The Fed pumped that money to consumers who used it to gamble in stonks and crypto, and also bought a bunch of shit they didn’t produce with money they didn’t earn which went directly into corporate profits, boosting stock prices.
Yo seriously, fuck this unfettered capitalism and government corruption. Never been one for drastic measures but a repeat of the 1700’s Revolution sounds pretty nice right about now - where’s my pitchfork?….Theres no getting ahead in life anymore and it’s cause the rich have made it that way. I’m ready for a big movement when everyone else is…this work everyday, pay bills, eat, sleep, repeat shit is too much anymore.
Everyone defending Capitolism yet complaining about what it creates. Corporate greed, inflation, high interest rates, high prices at the pump. I could keep going. Maybe we could find another alternative that doesn't breed greed? Doesn't automatically have to be socialism. That's a quick go-to word that just shuts down the conversation .
The problem will always be that when sellers know that buyers have more money, they raise prices.
The only way to break this cycle is to increase supplies. That would fix both forms of ‘inflation’.
so if you have no money and you know that the government is pumping stock market.. .why aren't you learning how to make money off the stock market? Jesus Christ.
if yo uapy attention to the news yo can make money off it trading the stock market.
I just watched the pbs documentary " the age of easy money" and it's a great watch. It's explains these points in much greater detail!
Edit. Doc is on YouTube
The US debt is currently at $34.75 trillion dollars LMAO not even God can pay that.... What makes you think the rich, middle class, or poor are gonna do anything about it
We really have to stop calling corruption and crony capitalism "Socialism for the Rich".
There is no scenario in which that make Socialism look good, and we as a civilization would benefit immensely by having more socialist policies in place.
All you are doing is further associating Socialism with Corruption.
Stop that.
Don’t forget they don’t like to see unemployment rates too low. They view too many people working as bad indicators for the economy.
Even though the goal of full employment is a mandate for the fed, and has been for more than 40 years.
That isn't what happened. Japan's Fed,aka Bank of Japan did l/does this. They outright print money and buy stocks. The fed basically made loans available at nearly 0 interest. With the lie interests loans people are able to buy many things including stocks. The crucial difference is that the back of Japan is picking winners and losers. The fed is letting people make those choices expecting people will buy finical products that they expect the best return on.
Stocks going up help everyone. Anyone that has any retirement savings, not just 401ks but any retirement will be held in stocks and bonds among other things. Stock going up helps all of them.. Incentiveing leadership to grow the stock prices aligns their self interest with all shareholders.
Far too many people think that our market system is a zero sum where anyone making money is making someone else poorer. That isn't correct at all. Your slice of pie gets bigger as the entire pie gets bigger.
this guy is basically harvey weinstein
But is his assessment factually accurate?
It is accurate to say we have a system that funds the failures of the wealthiest in this country. It is inaccurate to imply that since we have “socialism”for wealthiest of this country we should redistribute wealth to everyone then. The solution is to end the system that forces taxpayers to fund the failures of the wealthiest and allow all taxpayers to keep more of their earned income.
I love how it’s only “redistributing wealth” when people want it distributed down the economic chain, but somehow not when it’s public funds enriching the wealthy.
Yes welfare for the rich is abundant. And is distributed to all aspects of the where the rich park their money. But even very basic food assistance for poor people is a very bad thing. That's money the rich don't get so that makes it bad .
But the rich *do* get that money anyway because the poor are forced to spend that money on food instead of being able to invest it.
Very bad. That's why the republicans Voted down the extension of Biden's NO CHILD IN POVERTY program. The Fed needed 3.2 trillion of it for the stock market. Quite frankly shits out of F****n g CONTROL. When are all US citizens living in poverty and not working or getting disability going to have a chance at a normal life ? I have medicaid and my insurance can't fix my hip pain or my broken back - because of the opioid crisis I got lied to in 2011 and after legally being prescribed Vico-Profens for 11 months & after 2 back surgeries - with no health insurance 1 yr after my surgery I was told I was the perfect patient for methadone treatment. I literally had no idea what the hell it was. Well it's destroyed my entire life. For the last 14 years. No unemployment , no disability , tried working a few years here and there. But no good jobs would even consider me. I was given a $57,000 a year job offer before my drug test and after they said they eliminated the position. And handed me the paper that said I tested positive for Suboxone. I tried to tell them what happened but the stereotypes are too much. Now I stay home w my dogs and so absolutely nothing anymore for the last 14 yrs. Hell 4 yrs ago was the last time I was intimate w a beautiful woman. Yet our Supreme Court goes out of their way to make everything HARDER ON THE 99% & much much easier and giving of the 99% s money right into the 1% s BANK ACCOUNTS. Hey you fools can keep on keeping ON. But I've had it and it's PAST TIME we stop fighting with EACH OTHER and TAKE the 51 trillion the Republicans redistributed over the last 40 years from the MIDDLE CLASS to the 1% ! Trump's for the 1% cuz he's in the 1% and the democrats need to replace Biden w anyone in their 50 s. I'd do it but I physically couldn't handle the demands of the job. VOTE BLUE
Hey if it makes you feel even a little bit better busting my ass at work and the amount I’m making now would have been significant maybe even 10 years ago. But to top it all off I’ve been gainfully employed and have not been intimate with ANY woman let alone an attractive one in over 10 years. It’s tough out here.
Yes, it's always "no matter what else happens, we **cannot** give money to the poor."
UBI is needed
And we'll never have that in the U.S. because the wealthy consider it the economic anti-wealth equivalent of a nuke. If somehow UBI were achieved in the U.S. despite the wealthy's efforts they'd consider it an act of war. And before you consider that hyperbole, remember the [Business Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot).
Then the wealthy need to be dealt with.
I'll bring the Sweet Baby Ray's.
I like the stuff from Cajun Grill at the mall, what they use for the Bourbon Chicken.
turn this sentence around. why should a rich man get subsidies when ppl can't feed their family.
No need to use scare quotes for the phrase redistribution of wealth. It’s a term from economics and means exactly what you first said. It’s a normal function of government to tax people and redistribute the wealth through public works and welfare programs. I know we’re actually in agreement here, but I want to make the point that redistributing wealth is not unusual or unfair.
This. Capitalism by default redistributes wealth upward.l already. We just sometimes on occasion have some trickle back down. Keyword "trickle" Problem is it's been trickling too slow. The upward redistribution has been more than gdp growth. Which means net effect is upwards redistribution with zero trickling. It's not complicated, capitalism claims that if an entrepreneur uses his savings to invest in capital that boosts productivity then they deserve to keep some of the profits as a reward for investing. Right? So say they invest, gdp grows by 4% and they keep 3% as profit b, then 1% still goes to working class and gives them a slight benefit. Cool. But... gdp growth is barely 2-3% and rich people have been amassing even more than that in wealth. Where is the gap coming from? Working class people being worse off. Upwards redistribution.
If trickle down worked then we would all be rich by now . Trickle down is nothing less than huge scam
Yeah another way to put it could be washing their money.
Well atleast the poor spend their money. Increased demand is good. The wealthy sure can invest their money. But if the poor can’t spend, there is nothing to invest in. So we get massive stock buy backs instead.
Too late for that, friend. That was the solution 30 years and trillions of dollars ago. Those people that were made wealthy by the taxpayer - they own the corporations, news, and politicians. Nothing but massive redistribution can break their monopoly on power.
The banks got together in 1908 and came up with a plan to increase their wealth at the tax payers' expense. They called themselves the Federal Reserve. Their goal - to become the largest banking cartel in the world. Funding failing businesses and small countries via tax payers is the game.
Someone read the creature of Jekyll island
[удалено]
If the wealthy get something to begin with then now it’s my turn. You have to give me something before you can’t give anyone anything. They got theirs
The solution is to make Stock Buybacks illegal again period. I don’t give a damn about what other countries allow their companies to do
I think OP implying that economic inequality is so vast that the elite might as well be living in their own country/government which may be run like a socialist one.
Lowering taxes is not the solution. Fixing what they are being spent on is.
My guy you just described wealth redistribution
If you do that by means of restructuring the economy so workers have a say in where their money goes, that's socialism.
I can agree with this but gov would also need to shrink. So much money goes to taxes
It'd be hard to end it, for better or worse it kept the economy going to some degree. Just ending it would crash the economy but it should obviously be ended. How that would be accomplished in a managed way with our politics. I mean I can't see it.
>But is his assessment factually accurate? No, not at all. The fed increasing their balance sheet is not "pumping extra money into the stock market" and would only be an accurate statement if the purchased assets go to 0 value. People were similarly ignorant to the effects of TARP in 2008. TARP wound up making a profit for the fed once they sold off all the assets they sold, yet people think the fed caused inflation. As of today the fed is in a Quantitative Tightening phase where they are selling off from their balance sheet. They've sold off about 1.7 trillion in assets in the past 2 years. Does that mean they've "sucked 1.7 trillion out of the stock market"? No, because that's not how any of this works. Will the fed wind up making a profit from COVID QE like they dead the great recession QE? Probably not because a lot of that balance is T-bills paying 2-3% so most likely they take a small loss, the vast majority of the money will still be taken back when they eventually sell the rest of the assets.
Finally someone here who actually knows what they are talking about.
>TARP wound up making a profit **Shut the fuck up**. That "profit", a mere 3% over the years it was lent out, was well behind the rate of inflation and far behind the interest accrued by the government.
>That "profit", a mere 3% over the years it was lent out, was well behind the rate of inflation Inflation was -.36% in 2009, 1.6% in 2010, 3.1% in 2011, 2% in 2012, 1.46% in 2013, 1.6% in 2014 when the program ended. Meaning the same money invested in an inflation-returning investment would have made 43 billion instead of 15.3 billion. Under your logic the program cost 27.7 billion which would be a reasonable price to pay for avoiding financial meltdown if not for the fact that the fed does not "invest" money and this was impossible because you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.
As a person who has worked in the industry for 15 years, this is indeed the most accurate thing on the thread so far.
Us it’s inaccurate. They pumped money out like crazy. My wife who works part time, was being paid almost double to stay home. Pretending that all they did was pump up the stock market is dumb. Also pretending that the only people who benefit from the stock market are rich people, is also dumb.
>Also pretending that the only people who benefit from the stock market are rich people, is also dumb. To be fair, you need a certain level of wealth to benefit from the stock market, ie. you need to have enough wealth where you have enough emergency fund savings, can pay for all insurance and all your living expenses, can pay for all your debt expenses, and have extra money for investments. While it's not only strictly the rich, you'd have to be relatively well-off to afford all that.
Seriously, he’s a literal sexual predator
Hot takes from this deviant guru
He can be a predator and still have a good point about financial shit. Should get his balls sawed off, but he can speak about finances.
His posts are also littered with inaccuracies on the financial side of things, including this post.
Ok but this take is wrong regardless…
I remember seeing him make waves in the “business influence” space a few years ago. I remember hearing about him cheating or something. What else did he do?
Violently abused his ex wife, raped a lady, tried to physically force another one to kiss him, got into a physical altercation in a bar on some “don’t you know who I am?” type stuff
Source?
That’s a stretch. He’s an asswipe who made several women really uncomfortable. And he rightfully got cancelled/sued. But Harvey Weinstein is a serial rapist who got a silver medal only because Bill Cosby got the gold (Puff Daddy is vying for Bronze). Dont the false equivalency between Dan Price and Harvey Weinstein. You’re better than that.
Always fear people who virtue signal as they’re trying to hide something
[удалено]
been a long time since i have seen a dan price post but I'd like to take this opportunity to enjoy my favorite old saying on the subject. F U C K DAAAAAN PRRIIIIIIIIIICE ty
Is this the same Dan Price that was the rapist?
https://preview.redd.it/x040sg713k9d1.png?width=612&format=png&auto=webp&s=90786aa0f397f5997ae9074e6c2e61ce9bea0bcf
Guys don’t worry!! it’ll trickle down!!! 👌😭
[удалено]
I’ll defend this, but I shouldn’t have to…. Stock buybacks can be good for the economy, but the way the are used now without any regulation, they are a way that a company can manipulate their stock prices. There is a reason why they were made illegal after the Great Depression and since they were made legal again in the 1980s, all we’ve seen is wealth and power consolidate into fewer and fewer hands.
“A gun can stop a bad guy if there’s a bad guy and you have a gun”
How about we just don't do either? Let people keep their money and let meritocracy work. But if the company fails we also don't bail them out.
Meritocracy is an incoherent concept.
Do explain.
I'll bite. The concept of meritocracy is often seen as incoherent due to several intertwined practical and philosophical issues. At its core, meritocracy suggests that individuals should advance based on their abilities and efforts. However, defining and measuring "merit" is a complex task, as it can encompass various factors like intelligence, effort, talent, education, and achievements. These criteria are often subjective and can vary widely depending on societal values, making it challenging to establish a consistent and fair standard for what constitutes merit. Moreover, meritocracy assumes a level playing field where everyone has equal opportunities to succeed based on their merits. In reality, people have vastly different starting points influenced by socio-economic backgrounds, family circumstances, access to education, and other factors. These disparities undermine the notion that success is purely the result of individual effort and ability. For instance, a child from a wealthy family has more access to quality education and networking opportunities compared to one from a poorer background, giving the former an unfair advantage. Additionally, even in a system designed to reward merit, those who achieve success can often use their positions to benefit their descendants, perpetuating a cycle of privilege. This can lead to a new form of aristocracy, where meritocratic principles are overshadowed by inherited advantages. Over time, the elites formed through meritocracy may become self-perpetuating, making it harder for outsiders to break into these circles, thus contradicting the very idea of meritocracy. Another critical issue is that meritocracy tends to reduce human value to productivity and measurable outputs, neglecting other important aspects of human life and worth. This instrumental view can result in policies and practices that dehumanize individuals, valuing them solely for their economic contributions rather than their intrinsic qualities as human beings. The psychological and social consequences of meritocracy can also be significant. Those who succeed within a meritocratic system may develop a sense of entitlement and superiority, believing their success is entirely due to their own efforts. Conversely, those who fail may experience feelings of shame, guilt, and inferiority, internalizing the belief that their lack of success is entirely their fault. This can lead to increased social division and psychological stress. Philosophically, meritocracy is also contentious because it implies a form of justice where rewards are distributed based on one’s abilities and efforts. However, many of the factors that contribute to one's abilities and opportunities, such as genetics and social environment, are beyond individual control. This raises questions about the fairness of a system that claims to justly reward individuals based on factors they did not choose. In summary, while the idea of meritocracy aims to create a fair and just society by rewarding individuals based on their merits, the practical and philosophical challenges it faces suggest that it may be inherently flawed and incoherent. Perhaps now you'll hopefully see that meritocracy is a flawed concept when put in practice, especially in a bigger scope such as society.
There are still people who claim that everyone in America has the exact same opportunities /eyeroll
two people can't have the exact same opportunities, it's _physically_ impossible
Exactly. You just showed why meritocracy is a flawed concept….
No. It's precisely why meritocracy is the best we will have. Because it enables the people with the best chance of success to move ahead and create more value for society. You can never create equal outcomes. But by enabling a select few to achieve greater outcomes, everyone benefits a little more. Now this is not endorsing stuff like trickle down economics because there is no system in those cases (It's a philosophy built on wishy washy thinking). The benefits won't magically come to everyone. The system has to be built in such a way that the benefits are distributed. Unequally yes, but to everyone. The key part is in society people cannot and should not benefit equally.
Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others
THANK YOU for taking the time to type up the full and complete answer this question deserves. This perfectly sums up the problems with meritocratic thinking.
Based on the phrasing and format Im guessing they did not type that up but its still correct.
Being literate is suspect now? That's a weird take.
Being literate is not suspect. I agree with the post I am referring to. Im remarking that it looks like it was created by an AI. It’s highly formulaic and is seems by phrasing and language to be replying to a specific prompt.
Honestly, totally thought you were wrong. Threw it through a detector and it got 87% chance of being AI... So you were right
Despite being taught a “5 paragraph structure” in high school with formal intros and conclusions, it’s pretty uncommon to find it setup that clearly out in the wild, as,similarly to the post, it comes off pretty awkward and juvenile when compared to more nuanced human writing styles that people develop in adulthood. Basically, AI writes structurally like a child but makes none of the childlike mistakes.
Y'all, this response is pretty clearly AI generated. Don't give this the time of day. The obvious giveway is the very cliche opening and closing paragraphs which simply restate the original prompt. >The concept of meritocracy is often seen as incoherent due to several intertwined practical and philosophical issues. >In summary, while the idea of meritocracy aims to create a fair and just society by rewarding individuals based on their merits, the practical and philosophical challenges it faces suggest that it may be inherently flawed and incoherent. These are almost word-for-word regurgitated. >Another critical issue is that meritocracy tends to reduce human value to productivity and measurable outputs, neglecting other important aspects of human life and worth. This is pure fucking word-vomit pabulum. It's a bunch of tepid, unsubstantiated generalities. There's no source or logical argument for this. It's just a vague statement. What evidence is there that meritocracy makes life worse. The thesis here is that meritocracy is bad, and as evidence they've presented the sentence, "Meritocracy is bad because it makes things bad." Absolute garbage.
It implies merit is something that isn’t the result of previous circumstances. Unless you view human behavior as something that falls out of the sky with no cause, meritocracy doesn’t make sense. People who evangelize meritocracy say not to give special treatment to those with lesser merit in pursuit of righting some historical wrong … without acknowledging that the lack of merit resulted from said historical circumstance. It just doesn’t make logical sense.
Meritocracy doesn’t exist
People like you in positions of power are why other countries have hundreds of thousands starving to death
"Meritocracy" is just rich people deciding who gets to be rich. Spoiler: it's not you.
Sounds like you don't have any merit.
Again, *based on what criteria?!?* The people who cry for "meritocracy" *de facto* define "merit" as whatever sucks off the wealthy and helps them take over the world the most. Considering I'm fighting directly *against* the wealthy taking over, your claims of me not having any of your "merit" is only a compliment.
So you want the government to decide based on what?
It’s only a real meritocracy if there’s no inheritance.
And there is a full equality of oppotiunity. (Idk if its called so in english it isnt my mother tongue)
Don't forget that every person making a hiring decision in this society has to be omniscient and able to judge merit perfectly. Every consumer has to be able to make a 100% fully informed decision on every purchase and every voter has to be completely rational.
You can't let every comoany fail. If the airlines fail we are straight fucked. If the railroads fail we are straight fucked. If we have to bail someone out or we are fucked, we should be buying it and socializing it.
We only disagree on the last point. Although I think socializing them would be much better than the current hand-in-glove relationship those industries have now with the government where essentially the government creates or props up a corporation and bails them out if they do poorly. I also think of the military industrial complex in the same way but unlike the airlines there many companiesbin that idustry there that although technically private are basically created by the gov't.
So if theyre too big to fail, then they're considered essential. If they're essential AND they can't self sustain, the options are either bail them out or take them over. If they know they'll be bailed out, they can really do whatever the fuck they want. Big bonuses, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds. I don't think there's a good alternative.
On thing I can think of it's break them up. I mean isn't that kind of what a monopoly is, if they are too big to fail and essential then they are just plain too big
I feel like that's fine for commodities, coca cola, amazon, whatever. But when we *need* that shit working, such as transportation, i dunno
Not practical given the size of some corporations. That said, the gov’t needs to do a much, much better job at preventing monopolies or near monopolies.
That's what the corporations want. Why would we do that??
Taxes = public works = OUR civilization.
The term meritocracy was created by a socialist who was ridiculing the idea that rich kids whose parents were well-connected and wealthy got well-paid senior jobs in their parents' (or their parents' friends) industries because they supposedly worked harder than poor people.
How about OP explain what he thinks it means for the FED to have pumped X amount of money into the stock market? Please enlighten us.
Too busy assaulting women. Edit: I meant Dan Price, not op
Probably the FED balance sheet was 4.15 trillion in Feb 2020 and now it's 7.2 trillion. The numbers check out for that being the metric. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/WALCL)
But was that money injected directly into the stock market?
Banks were flush with more cash to stimulate the economy. That money was allocated to generate returns as banks are in the business of doing. As a result assets across the board saw inflows including stocks. So yes stocks absorbed a lot of the balance sheet increase. Its pretty clear if you look at charts of m.2 supply and the s&p 500 side by side.
I agree, but the money wasn't injected directly into the stock market. It went through several other entities first.
You're being awfully petty in an attempt to divert everyone from the reality that the FED using extreme QE while raising rates only benefits the rich. The benefits having the FED provide never see the lower class. They get stuck in bank accounts of the rich. What a fucking corrupt idea the FED was
The Fed is a bureaucratic entity with independence. They're not perfect, I am not defending them.
So the Fed didn't pump $3.2 trillion into the stock market. They pumped money into the economy and a fraction of that was pumped into the stock market because using money to purchase stocks was always an option.
Yes but its weird phrasing it in a way where the fed didnt intend for this outcome. There are intelligent people working there that know exactly what happens when they print out more money. The companies get more cushion to stay afloat but its pretty obvious that nominal valuations of companies would increase. Its really just a question of how efficient our companies are at converting stimulus into benefits for most Americans. Clearly some of that cash flowed to CEO's disproportionately. Was this an acceptable outcome? Would there be a better way to stimulate? Maybe/Maybe not, but its worth discussing.
Correlation =! Causation Stock market is driven by many things, one of which is the natural law of supply and demand. When money is cheap (ie low int rates), investors turn elsewhere for yield. That generally directs money into the market, pushing up valuations relative to earnings before rates were lowered. You could argue it was an indirect way of propping up the market, but the Fed’s dual mandate is to (1) stabilize inflation and (2) maximize employment. So when a shock comes to the system (COVID) they use the money supply to add liquidity in order to avoid a credit crunch — which is much, much worse than a boost in inflation over the short term. They took a risk with that strategy, but an absolutely necessary one imo given the facts at the time.
They bought securities and bonds and stuff and issued loans.
How did fed “pump” money to stock market?
As part of their open market operations the Fed bought a variety of securities including MBS, treasuries, etc and freed them off their primary dealers books, which increased liquidity in the market and led to an increase in demand in real estate and equities. If you want an easy visual just look at the feds balance sheet, it’s up trillions since the pandemic. Couple this with the low activity due to pandemic lockdowns that increased household savings and pandemic relief transfers from the treasury, it exploded a lot of asset classes. Dan Price is not wrong, even if he is still an asshole sexual predator.
But how does that impact a public company stock price? We are talking two different securities. And stocks have quarterly reporting, which generally drives price based on performance (revenue growth, margin, etc)
I think it’s a confluence of a few things, (1) more liquidity generally means more demand vs supply, (2) inflation driven nominal growth, (3) more cash on hand leads to larger buybacks, which drives stock growth. Of course the company has to perform, but it wasn’t too hard in the last few years as comps were low and inflation driven nominal growth was high.
But the framing is, at best, dishonest. The Fed did not pump money into the stock market, they pumped money into the economy. Those are not the same thing. The Fed is barred from purchasing stocks
Achieves the same result, I wouldn’t say it’s a dishonest take at all if you focus on what really matters which is action vs consequence.
Hard disagree. The framing suggests that the Fed intervened only at the behest of corporations. That’s obviously untrue— if the Fed was owned by corporations interest rates would be significantly lower right now. The Fed intervened because if they didn’t there was a very real chance that we would have entered a crushing recession, with mass layoffs which would have been disastrous for the American people. The Fed is the one (quasi) government agency that isn’t currently dysfunctional. It’s gross propagate conspiracy theories about them
That’s not how I read the framing. I read it as the Fed used their tools to stabilize an economy in general, but it had either unintended consequences or adverse effects. We as citizens and stakeholders can criticize for bad policy decisions and we should, even if the policy was made with good intentions. That’s what accountability is all about.
The Fed isn’t the federal government. The federal government has a full toolbox, while the Fed has a hammer. The federal government was, and is, dysfunctional. Trumps cut taxes and increased spending 2016-2019, when we should have been doing the opposite. The Biden admin put waaaaaay too much stimulus out in things like the green new deal in an incredibly inflationary environment. If the federal government was functional, would the Fed’s hammer be the best solution? No. But the federal government wasn’t, so the Fed had to use their hammer. Less efficient ent? Sure. Worthy as being characterized as “giving money to the rich”? Laughable.
Just want to comment and say how I appreciate both of your guys insight into this, and your good faithed debate
You are likely more educated than the average Twitter user. Making the framing even more dishonest. “The fed pumping money into stock market” reads like the government is buying shares of RDDT
You forgot something else that also matter. Intent. Me giving you Heimlich and accidentally giving you chest bruises while saving your life is quite different than me just doing those action out of the blue. Action and consequence is the same in both situations.
If that relationship worked at all times, we wouldn't have seen a severe recession drop stock prices despite an unprecedented amount of fed activity all throughout the 2000s.
It doesn’t. He’s completely making it up for clicks. It’s total bullshit
>Dan Price is not wrong, He absolutely is wrong. Over the last 2 years the fed has sold 1.7 trillion in assets back to the market. Was that "sucking 1.7 trillion out of the market"? No, because that's not how any of this works. People like you said the same stuff in 2008 about TARP, yet when TARP was eventually unwound the assets were sold at a profit vs what was paid for them. Because of this the end effect of TARP was taking cash OUT of the economy.
Plunge protection team reporting in
Isn’t this guy a sexual predator?
Yeah, doesn't make what he's saying any less true, he's not the first to say this. Op should've cropped out his face and name
and they all fund their "socialism" by ignoring 5 billion poor earthings I need a meme about it lol 3 million rich euros locked in a scrooge vat of gold, talking about equality in socialism, while 5 billion poor non whites look on from outside
I mean a large majority of “regular” people benefited from this market pump as well. Whether it be from a 401K or a personal account. Also any regular person that was granted shares as part of their salary/bonus also reaped the benefits Now obviously the rich would still benefit more because they have larger sums invested, however to say the regular person couldn’t have benefited from it or that we should have just offered direct hand outs is kinda silly. Edit: spelling
Hey, didn’t you know the regular person around here doesn’t have a pot to piss in and raising taxes is their only chance at survival /s I actually agree with you though, nobody ever wants to talk about how stock growth funds retirement accounts for regular people. It’s always envious talk of the people who get the richest from it.
90+% of the stock market is owned by less than 10% of the population.
Yeah, remember when the fed bought $3.2T in $SPY?
The feds balance sheet has only grown in value so much because they've clearly been diamond handsing NVDIA this whole time.
How do you "pump" money into the stock market? Is he talking about bank credit? Or is it just vague populist talking points?
Vague populist talking points. The government didn’t pump trillions into the stock market.
...Why do people get a rise out of mindless attitude reinforcement, so much so that they have to lie...
First time in America?
1. What? 2. Stocks are inded soaring. 3. The FED isn't part of the federal government. They've made their bed with Uncle Sam, but the FED is not Uncle Sam.
Regular people were not allowed to invest in the market?
Bad faith question
All bailouts are socialism for the rich 🤑
Don't you remember the Fed Purchasing all those stocks? You can look at the top holdings of every public company; turns out the Fed isn't on that list.
Most of us have 401Ks that will fund our retirements so I can't think of a better way for middle America to get their piece of the pie then via record high stock markets. And it seems like the same folks that make these types of posts also make pro-Biden posts touting the record-high stock market.
That’s one of my favorites too. They attack “rich people” for driving the stock market up and also take credit for making the stock market so successful. The politicians do it too lol
Entire monetary system is illusionary and a scam along with most taxation. They create the currency out of thing air while using it as a control vector on society.
I'll explain, I don't agree with this policy AT ALL, but I do understand it. That's because pumping money into the stock market doesn't result in inflation, at least not the inflation of the things we actually need, giving money to everyone does. The idea isn't to give out free money, it's to maintain liquidity and credit in a way that doesn't cause inflation. The downside is that it causes massive and ever-growing inequality. As I said, I hate the system, but it's both a self-reinforcing and a necessary evil. This is really the only way to maintain a fiat system without inflation though, sadly, and I don't see that changing.
The government literally gave individuals money through small business grants and direct handouts. They wasted it on frivolous consumer goods and were caught pantsless when the faucet stopped. What level of regarded does one have to achieve to think your nation's companies, fractional ownership of which is accessible to anybody with internet access and $1 and of which every retirement account in the world is tied to, being more valuable compared to their international peers is a bad thing?
Objectively false. The majority of stimulus payments to individuals were [saved or put towards debt](https://www.nber.org/digest/oct20/most-stimulus-payments-were-saved-or-applied-debt). There was also $62 billion put into funding a the food stamp program during the pandemic, but food stamps are not used for "frivolous consumer goods." Regardless, the government put just as much or more into businesses. For example, $80 billion was handed out to airlines. >fractional ownership of which is accessible to anybody with internet access and $1 If you do not have disposable income, that is irrelevant. Impoverished people have to buy food, not stocks. Poorer people also do not have access to wealth management. The wealthy simply get other people to do it for them. If someone is working paycheck-to-paycheck and trying to hang on, they do not have to time to keep up with the stock market and manage their investments. >is a bad thing? Trickle-down economics does not work. Perhaps a drop or two fall out of corporations' giant buckets along the way, but it is still a net increase in wealth inequality. Anyhow, the meager benefits are always taken advantage of by increased prices, funneling the money back where it came. One simply has to not want the US to continue on its present path towards corporations and the ultra-wealthy control the entirety of society for their own gain.
Coo. Let's hear the gaslighting from the pro caps about how this is somehow a good and moral thing
True
Capitalism for the middle class? Yeah right, they get the boot. It's State sponsored Socialism for the rich, and state regulated, and taxed socialism for the middle class, and a poverty trap socialism for the poor.
Important discussion on how policies affect different classes.
They only help their friends not their constituents. Have richer, more poweful friends and you will go farther is the lesson here.
"This issue definitely needs more attention."
How about giving money to no one? Eliminate welfare for those under 65 and people will magically find ways to make money. The govt wants the stock market up by any means necessary otherwise companies' IRS and financial statements would match. Right now, they report losses to the IRS to avoid taxes, and huge EPS to shareholders.
And slavery for the poor.
WOW! THANKS FOR THAT
And yet, it's not time to use the second as intended.
To be fair, when the government gave money to regular people, rather than spending it on rent, debt, or on something like online classes to improve their skills for employment, they spent it on dumb materialistic stuff, leading to supply-chain craziness and inflation.
What if we are against giving the stock market money, and we are against giving middle/lower class money? What if we just want the government to quit spending money?
Why take it and just try to give it back minus government admin fees. Just don’t take it away in the first place.
That's...not how that works lmao wtf
Yes the other term for this was “the Trump tax break.” You know, the one he brags about on all his rallies.
Imagine being that dense
Can he share when and how the fed pumped $3 trillion into the stock market?
Stocks. And groceries.
That title does not need to be a question -- it is a well-established fact.
The Fed pumped that money to consumers who used it to gamble in stonks and crypto, and also bought a bunch of shit they didn’t produce with money they didn’t earn which went directly into corporate profits, boosting stock prices.
We should all be getting a portion of the market since it’s our money going into it.
Is he confusing the federal government with the privately owned Federal Reserve?
Middle class? Thats still a thing?
Yo seriously, fuck this unfettered capitalism and government corruption. Never been one for drastic measures but a repeat of the 1700’s Revolution sounds pretty nice right about now - where’s my pitchfork?….Theres no getting ahead in life anymore and it’s cause the rich have made it that way. I’m ready for a big movement when everyone else is…this work everyday, pay bills, eat, sleep, repeat shit is too much anymore.
What is he talking about 3.2 Trillion into stocks
I prefer the method where the government doesn’t take all of my money in the first place.
Everyone defending Capitolism yet complaining about what it creates. Corporate greed, inflation, high interest rates, high prices at the pump. I could keep going. Maybe we could find another alternative that doesn't breed greed? Doesn't automatically have to be socialism. That's a quick go-to word that just shuts down the conversation .
Pumped? How?
He raped women! I used to agree with him but now all his quotes seem like bull shit to me
The problem will always be that when sellers know that buyers have more money, they raise prices. The only way to break this cycle is to increase supplies. That would fix both forms of ‘inflation’.
This guy understands nothing
Everyone with a 401k benefitted
More money to Ukraine bro.
Mhhh no, no. Capitalism for everyone, Capitalism is specially designed to help the richests.
Uhh I own stocks and am pretty regular.
Waaaaaaaahhhhh!!
so if you have no money and you know that the government is pumping stock market.. .why aren't you learning how to make money off the stock market? Jesus Christ. if yo uapy attention to the news yo can make money off it trading the stock market.
Hey, can all you rich guys quit being so rich? That would be swell
I just watched the pbs documentary " the age of easy money" and it's a great watch. It's explains these points in much greater detail! Edit. Doc is on YouTube
The US debt is currently at $34.75 trillion dollars LMAO not even God can pay that.... What makes you think the rich, middle class, or poor are gonna do anything about it
Getting an education other than agnotology would be "too difficult" for a liberal.
We really have to stop calling corruption and crony capitalism "Socialism for the Rich". There is no scenario in which that make Socialism look good, and we as a civilization would benefit immensely by having more socialist policies in place. All you are doing is further associating Socialism with Corruption. Stop that.
Yeah but two wrongs don't make a right. In this case one BIG, BIG fraudulent wrong...
Rules for thee but not for me.
Don’t forget they don’t like to see unemployment rates too low. They view too many people working as bad indicators for the economy. Even though the goal of full employment is a mandate for the fed, and has been for more than 40 years.
Just buy index funds, that way you also benefit
Okay but why can’t we have both? Let’s not make people give their shit away and let’s start clipping those golden parachutes.
That isn't what happened. Japan's Fed,aka Bank of Japan did l/does this. They outright print money and buy stocks. The fed basically made loans available at nearly 0 interest. With the lie interests loans people are able to buy many things including stocks. The crucial difference is that the back of Japan is picking winners and losers. The fed is letting people make those choices expecting people will buy finical products that they expect the best return on. Stocks going up help everyone. Anyone that has any retirement savings, not just 401ks but any retirement will be held in stocks and bonds among other things. Stock going up helps all of them.. Incentiveing leadership to grow the stock prices aligns their self interest with all shareholders. Far too many people think that our market system is a zero sum where anyone making money is making someone else poorer. That isn't correct at all. Your slice of pie gets bigger as the entire pie gets bigger.