Market Manipulation, the 1780s Way
common-place.org
common-place.org
It comes only a decade after Adam Smith's possibly infamous, and much-misrepresented book on the question of Nations and their Wealth, Inqueries therewith as to cause and nature.
It's also notable that the single and solitary mention of "free market" in Smith comes as a counterpoint to similar such commercially-initiated market constraints (here: woollens trade in England, with cheap imports of raw wool and prohibitions on finished goods imports) favouring woollens manufacturers.
Perhaps it was his familiarity with the privileged sort combined with his Scottish naissance which rendered him thus, but likely that's only my own wishful thinking.
An employee takes on more risk, simply because everything matters more to them, than it does to the owner, you can easily drop X amount and not feel a thing.
And I don't think that "feeling a thing" is relevant here; regardless of whether your net worth a million or a billion, when a company you invested in closes, you lose the same amount of money — unlike employees who got compensated for their time and work regardless.
Going from $1bn to $50m (a loss of 95%) in wealth might be psychologically damaging but you're still independently wealthy. You'd lose the jet (if you chose to buy one), but you'd keep the house, the car, the neighbourhood, etc.
Going from $1m to $50k (a loss of 95%) is absolutely enormous. You've lost the house and the retirement fund and you're starting from scratch with a deposit.
The realistic case for most labourers is worse than that. How much risk is involved in moving to a new town for a job? Training in a certain discipline? Deciding to have children or not? All of those are far more impactful on the middle class than on the wealthy.
Of course, you lose absolutely nothing. Well apart from your income. I mean that's about all you are risking. Oh but of course, you will immediately find a job after you are fired, without any kind of lead time. And sure, there is no chance you might ever go unemployed for longer than a week. I mean unless there is some kind of industry wide down turn which dries up all positions you could have taken. But that never happens.
> And I don't think that "feeling a thing" is relevant here; regardless of whether your net worth a million or a billion, when a company you invested in closes, you lose the same amount of money — unlike employees who got compensated for their time and work regardless.
Ah but of course. The billionaires take on so much risk, what with putting 1% of their assets on each bet. Truly enormous the amount of risk they take. Meanwhile all an employee is risking if a company goes belly up is funding for their entire family. No biggie.
You don't understand risk. Period.