4 ms·

I think there is a difference between nihilism towards our society or existence and the feeling that the stock market is crap. The latter does not necessitate t

I think there is a difference between nihilism towards our society or existence and the feeling that the stock market is crap. The latter does not necessitate towards the former. I think the feeling that the stock market is crap is completely rational for the working public. And hoping for the destruction of it is normal given that the normal person has experienced nothing good coming from it; in fact the normal person sees the stock market as something that the rich use to get richer. Believing that the stock market is crap has nothing to do with our institutions beyond wall street† so it doesn’t necessitate towards this dangerous nihilism that you are so afraid of. In the current discord I see two avenues for this despair. 1. Susceptibility towards populism and fascism. This includes trumpism, and is indeed worrying. Minorities are blamed for all the inequalities even though this stems from wall street and the stock market being crap... (don’t ask me, I don’t understand the logic either). 2. Susceptibility towards socialism. The collapse of wall street is viewed as a favorable outcome in the current class war. The suffering of the Bourgeois is victory to be celebrated. † Well perhaps tangentially the institutions which favors wall street; such as the white house; but that despair translates more to “we should improve our democracy somwhat” rather then “we should abolish democracy”.

dragontamer 6y ago
The Tesla Nevada Gigafactory, and all the jobs it entails, would not exist without the ability for the stock-market to raise billions of dollars. The banks were willing to offer Tesla ~$1.3 Billion IIRC, but the cost of the factory would be $5 Billion total. Furthermore, wages would have to be paid during the "rampup" period. I'd say "having a job at all" is a major advantage to the working public. All TSLA / Elon had to do was issue a secondary offering with a bit of hype to the public investors, and they shoved $Billions into the company, allowing it to expand. --------- You need to work on building cars for months, or even years, before a factory churns a profit. Where do you get the money for that? Well, the Stock Market is absolutely full of people who are willing to risk money (for the promises of more money). If you have a better plan for where a company can raise ~$4 Billion or so, please explain.
- runarberg 6y ago
  Not to long ago the government participated in big expensive projects like these. In the great depression nobody wanted to issue loans to big projects like these and nobody wanted to buy stocks to fund them either. What happened was not that new jobs didn’t get created, but that big expensive factories were build by the state. Note also that building a big factory to produce electric cars is exactly the kind of thing that the green new deal is advocating for. And this falls neatly into avenue of despair nr. 2: susceptibility towards socialism. As a taxpayer and a worker I would much rather want to see the profits of a big expensive factory—which the company it self cannot afford to build—go back to the state—or even better, to the workers; as opposed to faceless shareholders—or worse, to billionaires like Elon Musk.
  - dragontamer 6y ago
    > Not to long ago the government participated in big expensive projects like these. The Stock Market has been participating on these expensive projects since the 1500s Dutch Traders swapped stocks so that one shipwreck could be supported by many traders. You needed tons of money to fill a Treasure Ship, that treasure ship left for India with common / cheap European goods, filled up with expensive spices, and came back. The idea of selling stock to raise money is literally older than our government.
    - runarberg 6y ago
      I know, but what has that to do with anything?
      - dragontamer 6y ago
        You assert that the Stock Market offers nothing. But in practice, and what has been true since the 1500s, is that the Stock Market: 1. Provides initial funding for large, risky projects. 2. These projects (and jobs), such as the sailing jobs associated with those 1500s Treasure ships, would not exist without investment from a large number of investors. 3. The rewards (such as the Treasure Ship successfully returning from India) offers exponential growth. $100 investment becomes $200. Or $200 initial investment becomes $400, due to the difference in prices between Europe and India. As such, all investors of all classes who can afford a share can benefit. (Ex: A millionare may offer $100k, but a billionaire may offer $100 million. Both are awarded by proportion of the initial investment). 4. The value of the shares change based on information. If you hear that the Treasure Ship has sunk, the value is zero. If you hear that the Treasure Ship has made successful stops in Madagascar, India, or is nearly home, the value of those shares increases (less chance of failure, since its almost done with the trip). To fairly trade the shares innately means changing the value of the shares as various information comes in. --------- So my point is multi-fold. 1. Exponential growth isn't really from the Stock Market per se, but from the opportunities that arise from pooling money together. 2. The Stock Market makes those trades possible. 3. There are other ways to make such investments (such as US Government). But its not very clear that the government should be the one solely responsible for these sorts of risky behaviors. For better or worse, people understand the risks on the Stock Market (ex: if the Treasure Ship sinks, the value of that stock loses everything). If a Government-sponsored ship sinks, that's a huge loss for the Government. These sorts of risks are almost better handled by private citizens: the risk-takers, the Entrepreneurs, rather than stable governments or workers. 4. It is natural for the value of shares to change.
lamontcg 6y ago
There's a difference between thinking that the stock market has a lot of crap in it, and feeling like the stock market is 100% crap -- so YOLO into GME and bitcoin. The latter opinion is, honestly, the kind of attitude that I think is going to lead directly to fascism. Lots of people thinking "nothing matters anymore".

dragontamer 6y ago

The Tesla Nevada Gigafactory, and all the jobs it entails, would not exist without the ability for the stock-market to raise billions of dollars. The banks were willing to offer Tesla ~$1.3 Billion IIRC, but the cost of the factory would be $5 Billion total. Furthermore, wages would have to be paid during the "rampup" period. I'd say "having a job at all" is a major advantage to the working public. All TSLA / Elon had to do was issue a secondary offering with a bit of hype to the public investors, and they shoved $Billions into the company, allowing it to expand. --------- You need to work on building cars for months, or even years, before a factory churns a profit. Where do you get the money for that? Well, the Stock Market is absolutely full of people who are willing to risk money (for the promises of more money). If you have a better plan for where a company can raise ~$4 Billion or so, please explain.

runarberg 6y ago
Not to long ago the government participated in big expensive projects like these. In the great depression nobody wanted to issue loans to big projects like these and nobody wanted to buy stocks to fund them either. What happened was not that new jobs didn’t get created, but that big expensive factories were build by the state. Note also that building a big factory to produce electric cars is exactly the kind of thing that the green new deal is advocating for. And this falls neatly into avenue of despair nr. 2: susceptibility towards socialism. As a taxpayer and a worker I would much rather want to see the profits of a big expensive factory—which the company it self cannot afford to build—go back to the state—or even better, to the workers; as opposed to faceless shareholders—or worse, to billionaires like Elon Musk.
- dragontamer 6y ago
  > Not to long ago the government participated in big expensive projects like these. The Stock Market has been participating on these expensive projects since the 1500s Dutch Traders swapped stocks so that one shipwreck could be supported by many traders. You needed tons of money to fill a Treasure Ship, that treasure ship left for India with common / cheap European goods, filled up with expensive spices, and came back. The idea of selling stock to raise money is literally older than our government.
  - runarberg 6y ago
    I know, but what has that to do with anything?
    - dragontamer 6y ago
      You assert that the Stock Market offers nothing. But in practice, and what has been true since the 1500s, is that the Stock Market: 1. Provides initial funding for large, risky projects. 2. These projects (and jobs), such as the sailing jobs associated with those 1500s Treasure ships, would not exist without investment from a large number of investors. 3. The rewards (such as the Treasure Ship successfully returning from India) offers exponential growth. $100 investment becomes $200. Or $200 initial investment becomes $400, due to the difference in prices between Europe and India. As such, all investors of all classes who can afford a share can benefit. (Ex: A millionare may offer $100k, but a billionaire may offer $100 million. Both are awarded by proportion of the initial investment). 4. The value of the shares change based on information. If you hear that the Treasure Ship has sunk, the value is zero. If you hear that the Treasure Ship has made successful stops in Madagascar, India, or is nearly home, the value of those shares increases (less chance of failure, since its almost done with the trip). To fairly trade the shares innately means changing the value of the shares as various information comes in. --------- So my point is multi-fold. 1. Exponential growth isn't really from the Stock Market per se, but from the opportunities that arise from pooling money together. 2. The Stock Market makes those trades possible. 3. There are other ways to make such investments (such as US Government). But its not very clear that the government should be the one solely responsible for these sorts of risky behaviors. For better or worse, people understand the risks on the Stock Market (ex: if the Treasure Ship sinks, the value of that stock loses everything). If a Government-sponsored ship sinks, that's a huge loss for the Government. These sorts of risks are almost better handled by private citizens: the risk-takers, the Entrepreneurs, rather than stable governments or workers. 4. It is natural for the value of shares to change.

lamontcg 6y ago

There's a difference between thinking that the stock market has a lot of crap in it, and feeling like the stock market is 100% crap -- so YOLO into GME and bitcoin. The latter opinion is, honestly, the kind of attitude that I think is going to lead directly to fascism. Lots of people thinking "nothing matters anymore".