5 ms·

This whole thing puzzles me. These dingos are wealthy because they've got money in banks and stocks in brokerages. If the US dollar is managed like the 1980s

by cduzz 2y ago

This whole thing puzzles me. These dingos are wealthy because they've got money in banks and stocks in brokerages. If the US dollar is managed like the 1980s iraqi dinar, and the stock market is regulated as strictly as the 1980s baghdad stock exchange, what happens to their wealth? Apologies to the lackeys of Saddam Hussein, some of whom I'm sure were quite professional.

avs733 2y ago
Less than what happens to other people’s wealth. That leaves others needing to sell things that the wealthy might want. Look for example at wealth recovery post 2008
- cduzz 2y ago
  Whatever was broken in 2008 (and a lot was broken in 2008) regarding how people win or lose in the markets, it's nothing compared to if the markets are simply no longer actually following accounting rules. https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/3790568619352-go-haywire-onlookers-freak-out-as-25-year-old-set-loose-on-treasury-computer-system https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/3790568619352-go... What is money if there's someone out there just "number go up" people's accounts?
  - hypothesis 2y ago
    You have to be willing to go deeper to see what can be done. Say they start fudging numbers at DoL, so only them would know real truth and everyone else is just blundering in the dark. Combined with ownership of power structures, there is no need for money per se, you can acquire all of the critical infrastructure by applying blunt force. Check your nearest dictatorship for an example, we have plenty to choose from in recent history.
ANewFormation 2y ago
The problem you have here is differing perspectives on, for instance, current government financial responsibility. The government is currently $36 trillion in debt with that debt growing at an exponential rate. Our annual expenditure of interest on the debt has exceeded $1 trillion per year and will soon exceed the entire discretionary budget of the US. And this is happening as growth starts to slow and other countries continue to reduce both their reserves and dependency upon the dollar. Many don't see this as sustainable, or really even remotely sustainable. And so working to create more sound governance and spending today is motivated precisely by an effort to prevent a catastrophic crash. Like think about to back before the housing crash. There were numerous shows on TV about people getting a house (often with near 0 deposit), adding granite counter tops, and then reselling it within weeks for a $20k+ profit. Anybody could see that that sort of economic system could not possibly be stable, but most people have this instinct that a status quo must inherently be stable, but that's just not true. That unstable things have not crashed today is hardly an argument against them crashing tomorrow.
- cmdli 2y ago
  The trouble is that the statements and their actions don't line up at all. USAID, CFPB, and other government regulatory agencies make up a tiny, tiny portion of our current deficit. Even if these agencies were completely eliminated, it wouldn't do _anything_ to affect our financial troubles. Even completely eliminating every single government worker wouldn't solve the deficit. That's not even considering that these agencies can have positive, not negative, financial impact. A well-regulated economy can avoid disastrous recessions and thereby pay for itself manyfold. Hell, the CFPB was put in place to prevent the exact housing crash situation you just mentioned, but now one private citizen is getting rid of it because... he doesn't like it?
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    Outside of Biden and Obama (first term only interestingly) deficits were far less. As recently as 2015, it was "only" $442 billion, and generally less than a trillion. USAID's budget was upwards of $50 billion, so cutting that single organization brings us 5-10% of the way there. And its primary purpose was propaganda of the sort that, when effective, just ends up driving us into conflicts half way around the world and making it very difficult to ever truly improve relations with 'foreign adversaries.' I'm tired of being at war with Eastasia. And Musk has zero power. He can only make recommendations. The 'President Musk' stuff is a transparent effort to try to foment antagonism between Trump and Musk by exploiting Trump's insecurities.
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      Why do you omit Trump who pushed the government debt higher than Biden (and actually significantly higher than Obama in his second term, thus excluding the GFC)? https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united...
      - cycomanic 2y ago
        As a side note Usaid portion of the budget hasn't increased over the last >30 years (despite the large peak due to Ukraine support). https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-do/agency/us-agency-for-international-development/ https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-...
52-6F-62 2y ago
I think that’s why they are licking their chops looking at Canada, Greenland, and Mexico. Growth at all costs. Just like a startup. Just like Rome.

by cduzz 2y ago

avs733 2y ago

Less than what happens to other people’s wealth. That leaves others needing to sell things that the wealthy might want. Look for example at wealth recovery post 2008

cduzz 2y ago
Whatever was broken in 2008 (and a lot was broken in 2008) regarding how people win or lose in the markets, it's nothing compared to if the markets are simply no longer actually following accounting rules. https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/3790568619352-go-haywire-onlookers-freak-out-as-25-year-old-set-loose-on-treasury-computer-system https://www.newsbreak.com/raw-story-2096750/3790568619352-go... What is money if there's someone out there just "number go up" people's accounts?
- hypothesis 2y ago
  You have to be willing to go deeper to see what can be done. Say they start fudging numbers at DoL, so only them would know real truth and everyone else is just blundering in the dark. Combined with ownership of power structures, there is no need for money per se, you can acquire all of the critical infrastructure by applying blunt force. Check your nearest dictatorship for an example, we have plenty to choose from in recent history.

ANewFormation 2y ago

The problem you have here is differing perspectives on, for instance, current government financial responsibility. The government is currently $36 trillion in debt with that debt growing at an exponential rate. Our annual expenditure of interest on the debt has exceeded $1 trillion per year and will soon exceed the entire discretionary budget of the US. And this is happening as growth starts to slow and other countries continue to reduce both their reserves and dependency upon the dollar. Many don't see this as sustainable, or really even remotely sustainable. And so working to create more sound governance and spending today is motivated precisely by an effort to prevent a catastrophic crash. Like think about to back before the housing crash. There were numerous shows on TV about people getting a house (often with near 0 deposit), adding granite counter tops, and then reselling it within weeks for a $20k+ profit. Anybody could see that that sort of economic system could not possibly be stable, but most people have this instinct that a status quo must inherently be stable, but that's just not true. That unstable things have not crashed today is hardly an argument against them crashing tomorrow.

cmdli 2y ago
The trouble is that the statements and their actions don't line up at all. USAID, CFPB, and other government regulatory agencies make up a tiny, tiny portion of our current deficit. Even if these agencies were completely eliminated, it wouldn't do _anything_ to affect our financial troubles. Even completely eliminating every single government worker wouldn't solve the deficit. That's not even considering that these agencies can have positive, not negative, financial impact. A well-regulated economy can avoid disastrous recessions and thereby pay for itself manyfold. Hell, the CFPB was put in place to prevent the exact housing crash situation you just mentioned, but now one private citizen is getting rid of it because... he doesn't like it?
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  Outside of Biden and Obama (first term only interestingly) deficits were far less. As recently as 2015, it was "only" $442 billion, and generally less than a trillion. USAID's budget was upwards of $50 billion, so cutting that single organization brings us 5-10% of the way there. And its primary purpose was propaganda of the sort that, when effective, just ends up driving us into conflicts half way around the world and making it very difficult to ever truly improve relations with 'foreign adversaries.' I'm tired of being at war with Eastasia. And Musk has zero power. He can only make recommendations. The 'President Musk' stuff is a transparent effort to try to foment antagonism between Trump and Musk by exploiting Trump's insecurities.
  - cycomanic 2y ago
    Why do you omit Trump who pushed the government debt higher than Biden (and actually significantly higher than Obama in his second term, thus excluding the GFC)? https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united-states-presidents-have-run-largest-budget-deficits.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030515/which-united...
    - cycomanic 2y ago
      As a side note Usaid portion of the budget hasn't increased over the last >30 years (despite the large peak due to Ukraine support). https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-do/agency/us-agency-for-international-development/ https://usafacts.org/explainers/what-does-the-us-government-...

52-6F-62 2y ago

I think that’s why they are licking their chops looking at Canada, Greenland, and Mexico. Growth at all costs. Just like a startup. Just like Rome.