What I learned in school growing up was that if I lose a bunch of money gambling at the casino with my credit card, I don't get a free bailout from the government. But maybe things have changed?
> congress won't sell us out.
Uh, didn’t it already happen, again?
Propping up aerospace and banks again with taxpayer money, sending only a fraction (call it a “token”) to SMBs, with near unchecked disbursement powers, seems like they’ve continued on their same general strategy of wealth consolidation.
Made painfully clear with the messaging that “hey, a lot of people die from car crashes and the flu every year” directly followed by quotes of “these great American companies such as Boeing are NOT replaceable”.
IOW: old and/or poor people are commodities easily replaced.
Step 2: bail out market each time as it’s politically untenable to let the broader market prices decline
Socialism, but the higher % of total equity you own, the better the socialism works for you. Bonus if you have connections to people who can help you finance purchases, especially when the market is down.
Socialism is social ownership of the economy, what you're describing the opposite. There's another word for what you're describing, which is the extreme capture of the state by corporate entities: corporatism. The extreme form of which is fascism.
Having a large portion of the population with fractional ownership over a broad portion of the economy (via ETFs, etc.) sounds a lot like "social ownership of the economy" to me.
Unless, by social, you mean "equal" ownership (as GP points out).
I mean, they send me their prospectus. I can listen on the call. That's about it.
And that's not even accounting for the fact that the majority of citizens don't even have retirement funds to get them through.
Not sure why, but there it is: https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tips/jobs-and-career/can-you...
Why isn't it reasonable for the government to compensate businesses (and people) who are suffering as a result of the government's screwup?
The state is created by the class of people who own capital, in order to mediate, protect, justify and manage a world in which they continue to own and profit from their ownership of capital.
I obviously don't think it's nonsense, but it doesn't surprise me it gets downvotes. I think it's sad though.
Not to mention it's very easy for us in the technical class to not even notice that the vast majority of the country isn't like us. Waiters at restaurants, house cleaners, and the typical taxi/Uber driver own 'capital' in only the most pedantic sense of the word.
Honestly, with the wealth gap is wider than it's been since the 19th century, respectfully I think you're wrong.
The formal mechanisms of the modern nation state were the outcome of a 200 year process, a development over time. The nation state _emerged_ along with the capitalist market system. Before that we had feudal autocracies. What we call a government now is a product of push and pull, trial and error, experimentation. And the dominant force shaping it has been the need for those with wealth to preserve a market of private ownership that keeps them wealthy, and to keep the simultaneously emergent forces of popular democracy from threatening that.
The Marx quote might make it sound conspirational, but in the context of all the text around it, that's certainly not what he meant.
For what it's worth, you don't have to go looking in Marx for this kind of analysis. Classical liberalism would also admit this role for the state -- just with a positive spin.
[1] https://www.ft.com/content/2501e154-4789-11ea-aeb3-955839e06...
It should be considered remarkable that Marx's observations need only minor adaptations after one hundred fifty fucking years.
Are you saying because they (maybe barely, if at all) own the car, they are capitalists?
Anyways, Marx isn't scripture. Just a dude with some interesting writing some of us find cogent still. Marx himself would have bristled at being treated as some sort of biblical style authority. Of course it needs adaptations. But maybe not the ones you are suggesting.
I also think the definition of "industrial labour class" has changed significantly. The analysis still applies.
In the Anglo-American world we get caught up with Marx's use of the word "class"; because to us it has the connotations of social class; aristocracy, gentry, etc. But Marx had a very specific technical economic meaning, and it had to do with proximity to economic power and control. I don't think that's substantially changed, though it has become more subtle. In large part because of the post-WWII settlement between labour and capital in the west that created the 'middle class', which was really just a prosperous section of the working class.
That segment of society is shrinking though.
In the US, at least, this is a very large class.
Is it a problem that the government disproportionately benefits the top 40%? Yes, absolutely.
But you’re making it sound like the state is a conspiracy of the 1%...sure those folks get disproportionate benefits even above the other 39%, but the state doesn’t only exist because of the 1% — it benefits a much greater collection of people!
This creates some really bad incentives for companies and their executives.
If you are not in the position to have such an impact, either good or bad, then nobody will ever bother to bail you out.
It's more like, they get bailout based on how big they can convince lawmakers, in an environment of little public debate, that will be.
I know, it sounds like a nitpick, but sometimes the distinction is big.
No, you're right. It's always about the perceived value or impact. And that perception can be formed by deceiving, bribing, showing your books, etc.
Suits empty the company in good times and when shit hits the fan they put their hands in the air and say "well I did my best".
It’s usually not good when the SEC is chastising and/or disciplining the CEO of a company.
I’m not long or short TSLA, just presenting the bear case :) I stick to trading the indices
You may be replying to the wrong comment. I explained the reasoning for bailouts in general. Your characterization is besides the point. I only gave Tesla as an example of investing based on future expectation of value, similar to the reasoning behind some bailouts.
I wish people would stop getting so riled up at the mere mention of Tesla, so much so that reading comprehension flies out the window.
This being said, at times Elon has also gone to great lengths to mislead the general public and the shareholders in order to pump up that value in critical moments ("funding secured", "virtually certain") or bailout family with other people's money (SolarCity). Court decisions already stand to confirm this. I guess everybody's "a suit" when it suits them.