Unfettered Capitalism

[Indeependent]

There would be many fewer IPOs if there wasn't a secondary market to trade them in.

"Is the stock market one giant Ponzi Scheme?

"A Ponzi Scheme, for those who haven’t heard the term, according to Investopedia, is 'a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for early investors by acquiring new investors. This is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors’ funds to pay the earlier backers.'

"'Both Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes eventually bottom out when the flood of new investors dries up and there isn’t enough money to go around. At that point, the schemes unravel.'"
View attachment 386439

The Stock Market Is a Ponzi Scheme

Unlike Tickle Me, Elmo

My suggestion is that you not put your money into the stock market.
Yes, my friend, it’s that easy.

 

[dblack]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

 

[dblack]

A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.

Which institution do you blame for this failure?

Government is responsible for managing the commons. Are you trying to blame someone else?

 

[dblack]

If businesses can socialize costs, government is failing to do its job.

Again, your claim is backasswards. It's a policy failure, not a market failure. The government should prevent "socializing costs" - unless, I guess, it's a socialist government, in which case socializing costs is the point

Socialist governments would be more likely to nationalize a company entirely rather than allow shareholders to keep profits by shifting losses onto taxpayers.

Nationalizing a company doesn't prevent its losses from being shifted to the taxpayer. Nationalizing ensures that the company's losses will be shifted onto taxpayers.

 

[bripat9643]

I hear it's catching on.

"'If equality under the law is the hallmark of democracy, privilege sanctioned by law is the hallmark of aristocracy.'

"Just as feudal lords extracted wealth from serfs on their lands, today’s aristocracy does the same with corporations.

"Privilege – the right of the aristocracy – is 'a right to income detached from productivity.'"

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

Other than Democrat politicians, who has privileged sanctions in this country?

 

[bripat9643]

A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.

Which institution do you blame for this failure?

Government is responsible for managing the commons. Are you trying to blame someone else?

That's why the commons are always fucked up. In a well designed society there wouldn't be any commons. The problem with the oceans is that there's no way to convert it into private property.

 

[bripat9643]

There would be many fewer IPOs if there wasn't a secondary market to trade them in.

"Is the stock market one giant Ponzi Scheme?

"A Ponzi Scheme, for those who haven’t heard the term, according to Investopedia, is 'a fraudulent investing scam promising high rates of return with little risk to investors. The Ponzi scheme generates returns for early investors by acquiring new investors. This is similar to a pyramid scheme in that both are based on using new investors’ funds to pay the earlier backers.'

"'Both Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes eventually bottom out when the flood of new investors dries up and there isn’t enough money to go around. At that point, the schemes unravel.'"
View attachment 386439

The Stock Market Is a Ponzi Scheme

So when did the stock market "bottom out?" If anything resembles a Ponzi scheme it's government programs like Social Security and Medicare.

 

[bripat9643]

A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.

Which institution do you blame for this failure?

Ten Real-Life Examples of the Tragedy of the Commons - dummies

"The Grand Banks are fishing grounds off the coast of Newfoundland.

"For centuries, explorers and fishermen described this region as home to an endless supply of cod fish. In the 1960s and 1970s, advances in fishing technology allowed huge catches of cod.

"Following a few dramatically large seasons, the fish populations dropped, forcing Canadian fishermen to sail farther to maintain large catch sizes each season.

"By the 1990s, cod populations were so low that the Grand Banks fishing industry collapsed. It was too late for regulation and management; the cod stocks had been irreparably damaged.

"Since then, the cod populations have remained low, and some scientists doubt the Grand Banks ecosystem will ever recover."

I'm not aware that the code fishery has been "irreparably damaged." I bought some cod in the grocery story just laws week. The problem with cod is that they are still over-fishing:

Overfishing of Cod Continues Unabated | Conservation Law Foundation

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

 

[dblack]

A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.

Which institution do you blame for this failure?

Government is responsible for managing the commons. Are you trying to blame someone else?

That's why the commons are always fucked up. In a well designed society there wouldn't be any commons. The problem with the oceans is that there's no way to convert it into private property.

Parsing everything into private property would horribly in convenient. As such, we rely on government to manage those things we don't want to treat as private property (e.g. air).

 

[dblack]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

 

[Ame®icano]

Liberals love this phrase. Maybe I have a limited vocabulary, but I wasn't really sure what "fettered" meant. So I looked it up:

Any questions?

True free market capitalism fell when Mogadishu fell. Right wingers simply ignore our Commerce Clause.

Fuck off commie.

 

[bripat9643]

A shared resource is the legitimate domain of government - the commons. The market is irrelevant. If "some members of a community fail to contribute their fair share to the costs of a shared resource" it's the government policy regarding the commons that is failing, not the market.

Which institution do you blame for this failure?

Government is responsible for managing the commons. Are you trying to blame someone else?

That's why the commons are always fucked up. In a well designed society there wouldn't be any commons. The problem with the oceans is that there's no way to convert it into private property.

Parsing everything into private property would horribly in convenient. As such, we rely on government to manage those things we don't want to treat as private property (e.g. air).

You mean things that we are unable to treat as private property. Whereeever we can treat something as private property, the management is far superior to what government does.

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

More evil is better in the long run? How?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No, silly, communism is North Korea, where only the top party officials have cars.
Or East Germany, where you paid for your Trabant and waited 10 years to take delivery.
Or Venezuela, where the country with the largest oil reserves in the world can't supply
enough gasoline for their people.

None of those countries are communist. Well, they're communist in the same way the Democratic Republic of Korea is democratic...if you get my drift.

North Korea and East Germany weren't Communist? What were they?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Traffic congestion" is a feature of government roads. You have never heard of toll roads, have you dumbass?

Toll roads raise the cost of living and doing business.
Public roads do not.

Toll roads raise the cost of living and doing business.

How? Be specific.

 

[dblack]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

More evil is better in the long run? How?

?? I think you misread my post. In the long run, voting lesser of two evils gets you more evil. It degenerates each election as voters make it clear that they're willing to vote for shitty candidates.

 

[dblack]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

More evil is better in the long run? How?

?? I think you misread my post. In the long run, voting lesser of two evils gets you more evil. It degenerates each election as voters make it clear that they're willing to vote for shitty candidates.

Seriously, how far would you take this idiocy? If the candidates were Hitler and Stalin, would you go town arguing with the opposition over who had killed less people? Or would you say - fuck that, I'm not voting for evil?

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

More evil is better in the long run? How?

?? I think you misread my post. In the long run, voting lesser of two evils gets you more evil. It degenerates each election as voters make it clear that they're willing to vote for shitty candidates.

How does it generate more evil?

 

[bripat9643]

Whether it's in four months or four years, Trump is leaving behind an absolute mess. And yet, he could very well still win. The Democrats are taking advantage of the ugliness, ignorance and arrogance of the Trump administration by running a historically weak candidate.

35 years ago Biden and Trump polled in the 1%-2% range when they indicated a desire to become POTUS, so it's almost impossible for me to understand how we came to 2020's "choice."

It is interesting (at least) to note how southern Democrats continue their historic role in shaping Democratic politics?

35 years of lesser of two evils. So, here we are, with lesser.

That's a hell of a lot better than more evil.

Not in the long run. That's why we have such fabulous choices these days.

More evil is better in the long run? How?

?? I think you misread my post. In the long run, voting lesser of two evils gets you more evil. It degenerates each election as voters make it clear that they're willing to vote for shitty candidates.

Seriously, how far would you take this idiocy? If the candidates were Hitler and Stalin, would you go town arguing with the opposition over who had killed less people? Or would you say - fuck that, I'm not voting for evil?

How would voting for some non-entity who won't win change anything?