3 ms·

The goal is to destabilize and crater the economy then have the rich scoop it up for cheap right? With the goal of moving closer and closer to a pure rentier ec

The goal is to destabilize and crater the economy then have the rich scoop it up for cheap right? With the goal of moving closer and closer to a pure rentier economy?

Ancalagon 2y ago
really, are we trying to model our economy after Russian oligarchy? After free markets have gotten us this far? Quite counter-intuitive and stupid
- ModernMech 2y ago
  Yes, in fact we are. Conservative have been going to Hungary and Russia for years now to learn how to do it. It’s not a surprise Tucker Carlson went to Russia to interview Putin, and to tell us how amazing Russia grocery stores are. It’s not a coincidence Viktor Orban travels to America to speak at conservative conferences. These people are birds of a feather and they are flocking together.
apwell23 2y ago
i guess you converted all your investments to cash then?
- tonyarkles 2y ago
  Heh, I just checked and my portfolio peaked on Jan 23 and has been on a downward slope since then. Down about 6%. Wouldn’t have been a bad return if not for a bunch of tax implications.
- MarcelOlsz 2y ago
  I haven't had anything resembling cash or investments in years!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
nine_zeros 2y ago
That's just one of many goals. More goals include: - Selling American assets to billionaires to exploit - Gutting anything that helps average Americans so as to create justification for lower taxes for the rich. - Gutting Ukraine so as to cut spending so as to provide tax cuts for the rich. - Restricting any freedom of speech so that no one may complain about anything.
DamnYuppie 2y ago
Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure. I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.
- edoceo 2y ago
  Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m! Day to day spending pressure is what tanks. Economy depends on money flow. Most of that flow is necessities (shelter, food)
  - milch 2y ago
    Isn't it kind of sad that 100M doesn't even count as super wealthy anymore? That's missing 3 zeros. Yes 100M is enough that you never have to work again and can basically go anywhere and do anything you want in boundless luxury, but it also doesn't even cover the cost of one (1) boat purchased by the actual super wealthy
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    > Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m! This is not necessarily the case, due to leverage. For some, it can be "oh, no, my assets went to -200M down from 100M". In particular, it's somewhat common for rich people to fund their lifestyles, and sometimes fund business ventures (this is really playing with fire, but it happens) by borrowing against the stuff they own, which is usually mostly equity. In a really big crash, this can unwind rather messily, as some overstretched super-rich discovered in the previous financial crisis.
- MarcelOlsz 2y ago
galimalint 2y ago
[flagged]
- bigyabai 2y ago
  Assuming you're correct, Elon Musk and Donald Trump are about the least qualified individuals in the America to resist them. We need accountable politicians, not businessmen and property moguls running things.
  - gscott 2y ago
    They were all on stage together during the inauguration. The take down of barely there social programs so that the rich can keep more of their money to loan to you at usurious rates. Why else would Elon Musk be doing it himself. There has to be a lot of upside for him we only see the downside but he sees a bigger picture as far as his finances.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- MarcelOlsz 2y ago
  I cannot entertain any arguments besides rich vs poor when we have arguably the worst income inequality ever. Not that there aren't problems with the "bureaucracy" you mention, but fundamentally these are your friends and coworkers, while billionaires are not. I think your priorities are inverted. It is always about rich vs poor first because we live in a material world. Everything else is secondary and downstream. I think the wool has been pulled over your eyes by rich con men. Fundamentally doomed arguing within the existing status quo when we should be moving towards something different entirely seeing as capitalism has served its purpose of seeding the economy ages ago, and now we are 'over the hump' so to speak as we watch wealth concentrate further and its effects. So long as we live inside a permanent growth mindset anything and everything will be doomed. It makes no sense to live in a system that still rewards rarity rather than celebrating ubiquity, which we cannot escape if the resources we've been seeded with continue to concentrate. It is and has always been labour vs capital.
yongjik 2y ago
I don't think cratering the economy actually helps Trump, Musk, or their billionaire friends. Billionaires need a functioning economy to continuously make money. Economic implosion might bring a period of horrible instability after which a few of them may end up at the top, but it's with a non-negligible chance of things like "We triggered a war and all my investment has burnt down" or other nice stuff. My best guess is that Trump and Musk are led by an intense hatred of everything the "old government" stands for, and acting emotionally, ignoring long term consequences.
- jrs235 2y ago
  These folks want power (control). What's more powerful? Owning 99.99% of all wealth valued at $1 trillion. Or owning 90% of all wealth valued at $100 trillion? Remember it's not about money, it's about power (aka control)...
  - lawn 2y ago
    Wealth is always relative, so yeah.
rsynnott 2y ago
I think people are a _little_ too eager to jump to "there must be a diabolical master plan". It's _Trump_; it's entirely possible that it's just vibes-based. "Tariffs are good because when I say tariffs the rubes cheer loudly at my rallies" sort of thing.
- krapp 2y ago
  Musk and his ilk of neoreactionary groyper tech-feudalists definitely have a master plan. The Heritage Foundation definitely has a master plan (they published it and everything.) I don't know if I credit Trump with the stability of character to have a "master plan" beyond whatever satisfies his ego in the moment, but it does kind of seem like he isn't really entirely in charge.
QuantumGood 2y ago
So many possibly framings of motive, activity and outcomes all within the paradigm of "power corrupts" with propaganda masking the corruption.

The goal is to destabilize and crater the economy then have the rich scoop it up for cheap right? With the goal of moving closer and closer to a pure rentier economy?

Ancalagon 2y ago

really, are we trying to model our economy after Russian oligarchy? After free markets have gotten us this far? Quite counter-intuitive and stupid

ModernMech 2y ago
Yes, in fact we are. Conservative have been going to Hungary and Russia for years now to learn how to do it. It’s not a surprise Tucker Carlson went to Russia to interview Putin, and to tell us how amazing Russia grocery stores are. It’s not a coincidence Viktor Orban travels to America to speak at conservative conferences. These people are birds of a feather and they are flocking together.

apwell23 2y ago

i guess you converted all your investments to cash then?

tonyarkles 2y ago
Heh, I just checked and my portfolio peaked on Jan 23 and has been on a downward slope since then. Down about 6%. Wouldn’t have been a bad return if not for a bunch of tax implications.
MarcelOlsz 2y ago
I haven't had anything resembling cash or investments in years!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

nine_zeros 2y ago

That's just one of many goals. More goals include: - Selling American assets to billionaires to exploit - Gutting anything that helps average Americans so as to create justification for lower taxes for the rich. - Gutting Ukraine so as to cut spending so as to provide tax cuts for the rich. - Restricting any freedom of speech so that no one may complain about anything.

DamnYuppie 2y ago

Well rich people already own most assets. Why would they want their holdings to lose value? Market crashes hurt HNWI's the most, as they have the most exposure. I am not sure if you feel the second point follows on from the first or stands on its own? I will respond to it as a separate issue and I take it to mean the economy as a whole and not just residences. That being said I agree it is the goal of companies to move that way as they will always push for more control and recurring revenue, but that’s just corporate incentives at play, not global a shadowy plan imho. If we the consumers push back and demand our DVD's and CD's (yes I still use those) there will be players who come forth to take our money for them.

edoceo 2y ago
Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m! Day to day spending pressure is what tanks. Economy depends on money flow. Most of that flow is necessities (shelter, food)
- milch 2y ago
  Isn't it kind of sad that 100M doesn't even count as super wealthy anymore? That's missing 3 zeros. Yes 100M is enough that you never have to work again and can basically go anywhere and do anything you want in boundless luxury, but it also doesn't even cover the cost of one (1) boat purchased by the actual super wealthy
- rsynnott 2y ago
  > Market crash won't hurt the super wealthy. Oh no! My assets went to 60m down from 100m! This is not necessarily the case, due to leverage. For some, it can be "oh, no, my assets went to -200M down from 100M". In particular, it's somewhat common for rich people to fund their lifestyles, and sometimes fund business ventures (this is really playing with fire, but it happens) by borrowing against the stuff they own, which is usually mostly equity. In a really big crash, this can unwind rather messily, as some overstretched super-rich discovered in the previous financial crisis.
MarcelOlsz 2y ago

galimalint 2y ago

[flagged]

bigyabai 2y ago
Assuming you're correct, Elon Musk and Donald Trump are about the least qualified individuals in the America to resist them. We need accountable politicians, not businessmen and property moguls running things.
- gscott 2y ago
  They were all on stage together during the inauguration. The take down of barely there social programs so that the rich can keep more of their money to loan to you at usurious rates. Why else would Elon Musk be doing it himself. There has to be a lot of upside for him we only see the downside but he sees a bigger picture as far as his finances.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
MarcelOlsz 2y ago
I cannot entertain any arguments besides rich vs poor when we have arguably the worst income inequality ever. Not that there aren't problems with the "bureaucracy" you mention, but fundamentally these are your friends and coworkers, while billionaires are not. I think your priorities are inverted. It is always about rich vs poor first because we live in a material world. Everything else is secondary and downstream. I think the wool has been pulled over your eyes by rich con men. Fundamentally doomed arguing within the existing status quo when we should be moving towards something different entirely seeing as capitalism has served its purpose of seeding the economy ages ago, and now we are 'over the hump' so to speak as we watch wealth concentrate further and its effects. So long as we live inside a permanent growth mindset anything and everything will be doomed. It makes no sense to live in a system that still rewards rarity rather than celebrating ubiquity, which we cannot escape if the resources we've been seeded with continue to concentrate. It is and has always been labour vs capital.

yongjik 2y ago

I don't think cratering the economy actually helps Trump, Musk, or their billionaire friends. Billionaires need a functioning economy to continuously make money. Economic implosion might bring a period of horrible instability after which a few of them may end up at the top, but it's with a non-negligible chance of things like "We triggered a war and all my investment has burnt down" or other nice stuff. My best guess is that Trump and Musk are led by an intense hatred of everything the "old government" stands for, and acting emotionally, ignoring long term consequences.

jrs235 2y ago
These folks want power (control). What's more powerful? Owning 99.99% of all wealth valued at $1 trillion. Or owning 90% of all wealth valued at $100 trillion? Remember it's not about money, it's about power (aka control)...
- lawn 2y ago
  Wealth is always relative, so yeah.

rsynnott 2y ago

I think people are a _little_ too eager to jump to "there must be a diabolical master plan". It's _Trump_; it's entirely possible that it's just vibes-based. "Tariffs are good because when I say tariffs the rubes cheer loudly at my rallies" sort of thing.

krapp 2y ago
Musk and his ilk of neoreactionary groyper tech-feudalists definitely have a master plan. The Heritage Foundation definitely has a master plan (they published it and everything.) I don't know if I credit Trump with the stability of character to have a "master plan" beyond whatever satisfies his ego in the moment, but it does kind of seem like he isn't really entirely in charge.

QuantumGood 2y ago

So many possibly framings of motive, activity and outcomes all within the paradigm of "power corrupts" with propaganda masking the corruption.