5 ms·
right, lots of fund managers accept that crashes happen periodically...the permabears like Hussman assume they STAY low over a long period of time yet society r
by junkscience2017 9y ago
right, lots of fund managers accept that crashes happen periodically...the permabears like Hussman assume they STAY low over a long period of time yet society retains enough order to let them fulfill their thesis
if the market crashed that low for a decade, you would see massive regime change in every democratic nation and the rich would be stripped bare
- f00_ 9y agoactually, the corporate nanny state will just bail them out. See: Long Term Captial Management, S&L crisis/Continental Illinois under Reagan/Bush Sr, 2008 crisis They have an implicit subsidy, Too Big To Fail: access to cheap credit because creditors know the nanny state will bail them out. Why don't we call it welfare when we give money to the rich? Capitalism for the poor, socialism for the rich. We don't need market discipline, but YOU do
- stevenmays 9y agoThe corporate nanny state is more then willing to let individual firms collapse (bear stearns). Your examples were a systemic risk, if those organizations collapsed there was going to be a lot of collateral damage.
- f00_ 9y agothey could of nationalized the banks, but no instead they just give them handouts but yeah, I wonder why they didn't decide to save bear stearns, maybe it collapsed and that was the reason they decided to save the rest best source about the 2008 crisis? I really like noam chomsky and michael lewis' work
- junkscience2017 9y agoHussmans scenario is far worse than 2008...more like the Great Depression x2 we basically don't know what would happen, but it's safe to say the rich might not be assured of a safe bearish trading market in a civil society
- adventured 9y ago> if the market crashed that low for a decade, you would see massive regime change in every democratic nation and the rich would be stripped bare That wouldn't happen at all in fact. We've already recently seen that kind of economic pain on a protracted time frame. See: 1967 to 1982, a time in which inflation adjusted the S&P 500 lost 2/3 of its value. Stagflation, high unemployment, high inflation, economic chaos, price controls, war in vietnam, societal upheaval, smashed real estate values - that era saw it all. The rich were not stripped bare at all. Spain just went through an extraordinarily painful depression, the likes of which the US hasn't seen in 80 years. The rich were not stripped bare, Amancio Ortega is worth $76 billion. Portugal went through something similar. Greece arguably had it even worse. The rich were not stripped bare. Russia is a klepto-state that freely takes whatever it wants from the private economy. They just went through a severe recession that set their economic standing back ten years, the oligarchs were not stripped bare. Japan saw net negative economic growth over 20 years, while the median standard of living in Japan dropped by more than 1/3 thanks to currency debasement and high taxes vs no growth. The rich were not stripped bare. You'll of course notice the common theme across all these different cultures.
- oblio 9y agoThe common theme is that the majority of people were not starving. That's how revolutions are fueled. None of the countries you listed were facing actual famines.
- neumann 9y agoSo, for the rich to keep (and make) their wealth, they just need to ensure that the serfs/plebs don't starve. Low bar for success!
- joejerryronnie 9y agoUniversal Basic Income