6 ms·

America's stock-market dominance is an emergency for Europe

43 points by mudil 1y ago

juniperus 1y ago
funny to note how Europe is considered more socialist and America more capitalist, but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism, whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments. Of course, not much power is derived through American ownership of the means of production via the stock market because that power is delegated to the institutions who have the actual control, serving the same role as the politburo, for instance, in more ostensibly communist systems.
- luckylion 1y ago
  While the public doesn't have immediate power, it has a lot of freedom. If you manage your retirement fund, you can use it in whatever way you want. Buy a boat. Start a company. Gamble it all away in a week. A lot of European countries have a much more paternal approach. Citizens can't be trusted to make good decisions, so they only receive part of their salary, and the rest is being managed "for them" - and that's non-negotiable (but there are some exceptions). A lot more stable, but a lot less free because you have a guardian making those decisions for you.
  - tfourb 1y ago
    This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners. This system has its problems, mostly demographics with fewer young people entering the workforce and an unwillingness to fill the gap with immigration, but it has nothing to do with not trusting people to make their own decisions. It’s simply a historically grown approach which actually has worked quite well (and better than in the US for a greater share of society) for over a century.
    - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
      > This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners. It is a big Ponzi scheme, and now that fewer people are joining the workforce, governments borrow money to pay pensions. And a duscretiinary power to decide how much a retired worker gets. Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it. The American way is actually the mote fairer system. Could be even more fair if you did mot have to pay tax on your pension gains from stocks inventments and whatnot.
      - yo_ean 1y ago
        How would European pensioners in 1950 be paid their pension with the American system? Note all savings they had went to zero in the decades before.
        ExoticPearTree 1y ago
        They should have gone back to work. It would have sucked, but they wouldn’t have been a burden on the current generation back then who did not start the war or went through the great depression.
      - tfourb 1y ago
        Depends on your definition of "fair" and if you value that fairness more than social solidarity. I personally do not think it is "fair" that your basic human dignity in retirement statistically depends to a large extend on the wealth and social status of the parents that you were born to. I would actually argue (and many EU constitutions are based around this principle) that no matter your personal or your parents' contribution to the economy or society, you should be guaranteed a certain level of dignity, care and security. The classical "Old World" social system is based around solidarity. Solidarity of the young with the old, of the healthy with the sick, of the fortunate with the unlucky. It has produced much better results for a far greater share of society and with much less inherent risk than the "everyone for their own" system of ultimate individual responsibility that the US has largely favored. Where it has failed it was largely due to the "neoliberal turn" of the 1990s and 2000s. It's clearly due for an overhaul, but there are good options to do so. Europe's societies are waelthier, both in absolute term, as well as on average per capital, than they've ever been. What's missing is largely the political will to commit to the principle of solidarity over the resistance of monied interests that would benefit from a stronger turn to individualism. And I challenge you to look at the results of the mostly private health and pensions systems in the US on a factual and comparative basis and claim that they produce inherently better results. "Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it." Again, this is not how it works. I.e. in Germany there are actual laws governing the setting of pensions. And while these laws can be changed by parliament (though not by "bureaucrats"), they are rooted in constitutional principles that set guardrails for any reform.
  - lucketone 1y ago
    Your analysis is fully correct. I want to add one more aspect to this. If I gamble my pension away, I have detrimental effect on my neighbours and the rest of society. Sure I could work for a little longer, but not for too long. One non-exhaustive example: If I don’t die right after my last contract ends, it means I’m consuming food and have some kind of shelter, which is payed by somebody.
    - luckylion 1y ago
      That's the stability vs risk trade-off, I think. The European approach is much more stable, but stability isn't free. I'd compare it to investing in the stock market (volatility & good yield) vs investing in government bonds (more secure, you know what you'll get back after they mature, lower yield).
- dlcarrier 1y ago
  I think what's more important isn't who runs current production, but who can start future production. The people of the US own the means of production because they can legally start their own companies, with relatively low barriers to entry, to replace the ones currently in power. The US has far more protectionism and other barriers to entry than it did when it seized the means of production from England, through the Boston tea party and the revolution that followed, but it still has enough freedom of business that it easily beats the European Union in pretty much every developing field. Where the American Revolution differes from communist reviolutions is that, after seizing the means of production from a repressive government, the revolutionaries' new government did not hold onto the means of production through a planned economy, but instead held effectively zero economic oversight, leaving production open to a free market and anyone who wished to participate in it.
- motorest 1y ago
  > (...) but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism (...) Do they own it, though? Or is the US public relegated to a position of financing investment corporations without any ownership or control in exchange for a fraction of the profits and the bulk of the losses? If anything, the US public seems to be used as a strategy to lower investment risks of investment firms. > (...) whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments. The "state-based" aspect which you are casually glancing over refers to full blown income redistribution schemes, where everyone's paycheck, being rich or poor, is proportionally deducted to finance retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, parental leaves, and even medical leaves. Do you think that paying a corporation to invest in the stock market is more socialist than this?
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > Do they own it, though? Yes. Do they control it? If you really get right down to it, technically also yes. If the public banded together to get things done, it would get done. But as with anything shared by millions people in the real world there becomes a disconnect between the people and in the chaos of lack of communication and no shared will to get things done a few actors end up usurping control. So in practice, no. But, I mean, that has always been the criticism of socialism — that a few actors end up taking control — so no surprises there.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > which is one of the core tenets of communism One of the core tenants of the Communist Party, who believe (on paper, at least) that socialism is the path to enabling post-scarcity. Communism is an imagined sci-fi world where we've already achieved post-scarcity; Star Trek is a more modern adaptation of the same idea. If it has anything resembling "core tenants", there being no ownership is one of them. It is imagined that in a post-scarcity world, ownership doesn't mean anything.
neonate 1y ago
https://archive.md/XiL3M https://archive.md/XiL3M
crinkly 1y ago
WSJ are pushing it there. Depends what you mean by dominance. The US market is propped up on hyped big tech investments with little chance of ROI for shareholders other than inflating the valuations. PE ratio is quite frankly bananas too. At some point it’s going to be absolute carnage. Private investment companies have already seen the end game and from direct observation have been pushing the hype to drive volume so they can shift their holdings on to the bagholders. Good luck. It’s not a stable market. It’s fucked.
- dlcarrier 1y ago
  Multiple branches of the US government regularly go after business for having too high of a profit margin. I really don't blame businesses for holding onto their cash, instead of making stock disbursments, when that's exactly what they are incentivized to do.
  - devoutsalsa 1y ago
    I really wish they’d ban stock buybacks. When executives get paid in stock options, they want the stock price as high as possible. The easiest way? Buy back shares to make the remaining ones worth more. But when companies do this while their stock is overpriced, they’re wasting shareholder money on expensive shares. Executives pad their own pockets while shareholders get screwed. I’d rather see companies pay better dividends or keep the cash. At least then shareholders actually benefit instead of just watching executives get richer.
    - dlcarrier 1y ago
      That happens because of a Clinton administration regulation that was meant to reduce executive pay, but instead incentivized raising it: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-executive-pay-cap-that-backfired https://www.propublica.org/article/the-executive-pay-cap-tha...
- motorest 1y ago
  I don't know who is downvoting this post. The fact that companies such as Tesla as being featured as meme stocks for years, with valuations that bear no relationship to performance let alone fundamentais, is a clear indicator that the house of cards can tip at any moment.
tfourb 1y ago
„Higher pay for U.S. executives is another draw. Peter Jackson, the chief executive of Flutter, which owns the betting platform FanDuel, nearly tripled his compensation after the gambling company moved its main stock listing to New York last year from London.“ Well, I think we solved the riddle …
ur-whale 1y ago
https://archive.is/XiL3M https://archive.is/XiL3M
elcritch 1y ago
I hope that the European Union reforms its bankruptcy laws to match those in the US. Bankruptcy clemency is one of those key advantages the US has to really enable entrepreneurship. Another one in California is no non-competes. As an American I want to see the EU be economically vibrant!
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  No non competes are there in some countries (not sure how many but at least where I had companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on as they don't hold up). And bankruptcy, again where I have had companies, is not really a big issue if you didn't do illegal stuff. You mostly have to show your accounting is proper and you didn't do anything bad. Really not that complex. People do still put a stigma on it; I had 20 companies, 3 bankruptcies, 10000+ jobs made, 100m+ in taxes paid and still people whine about the bankruptcies; but it is not hard to execute. What makes the US easier outside less stigma?
  - RugnirViking 1y ago
    Having tried myself in the EU; access to capital. People as far as I can remember there's something between 5-50x as much capital going around in America. For industries outside of strict software, you NEED capital to get going. Can't bootstrap medical trials.
    - anonzzzies 1y ago
      Yeah that's true. We never needed much capital (we are software/hardware) but if we would have then it is a lot harder. That said; I raised Euro 10m in a bar in spain without even any paperwork. But if you need a billion, I would say that's just much easier in the US.
roenxi 1y ago
The article seems to roughly match the headline - I don't know why we're sourcing the WSJ to comment on Europe's policy with ideas like "emergency" or "wake up call"s. The Europeans are the ones with the opinions that matter on this one, presumably they think this is all acceptable given that they've been heading in this direction for a decade (if not decades), cheerfully willing to bear the consequences of being less business-friendly than the States (to say nothing of China). I'm not even sure we can call this unintended consequences - there seems to be some acceptance that Europe is going to be #3 when it comes to raw economic power. I can make a forecast - anyone outside the US who lets their policy positions be swayed by the US press is heading for a disaster. Even if the Americans turn out to be accurate in their opinions. Countries need to maintain their own internal dialogue. It'd be more interesting to be looking at what the British, or even the Germans and French think about the situation. They're the ones with the levers.
- chaostheory 1y ago
  Why Germany? Isn’t Germany already in a demographic crisis that’s nearly impossible to recover from?
- LaurensBER 1y ago
  European here. I feel that our priorities have been on social/climate issues. For a very long time the feeling was that we had enough prosperity and that more was nice but that it was not as important. There was some serious talk about "de-growth" and the trend (for some groups) was mostly towards working less but maintaining the same standard. Among left political circles it seemed that the focus was on doing the most good, for the most people and this focus often lay outside of Europe. To put this in a historical context, many Europeans (especially Germans) feel that we have historical sins to atone for. We trusted the US and were happy to see them succeed. To a lesser degree we trusted China and Russia and we figured that they would make (economical) rational choices to codependency was seen as a strength and not a weakness. It's very clear that we were in some degrees naïve and lazy and wasted opportunities and choices. Europe occasionally needs a good crisis to get going again, I'm glad we're finally getting one.
  - 1y ago
ath3nd 1y ago
No, it's not. Nothing stock market is relevant or important.
dzonga 1y ago
what's not spoken about is the moral posturing of western countries the uk/e.u etc that has affected their global markets. without their moral posturing - dubai wouldn't exist.in 3rd world countries a while back in the 90s companies would dual-list on their home exchange and the LSE. win-win. back then visas were not difficult to get etc or you could travel visa free if part of commonwealth. now the shaddy business dealers would rather prefer dubai were they're not lectured about the moral failures of their business practices or who they associate with. trump for all his failures was able to recognize this - hence one of his first trips was to the GCC.
spwa4 1y ago
Don't worry, EU governments have already JUMPED into action. They have collectively decided they will make the rich richer and use whatever means required to insulate the government from the economy. Zero economic compromises when it comes to government's own functioning ... You know, things that absolutely do not matter for competitveness. So the plan is to save their way to growth. For example: less students, less research, less teaching (including at lower levels), less ... https://universitytimes.ie/2025/05/french-students-protest-budget-cuts-to-colleges-and-the-arts/ https://universitytimes.ie/2025/05/french-students-protest-b... https://www.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/higher-education-budget-cuts-universities-concerned-about-baden-wuerttembergs-future-viability/ https://www.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/higher-education-budget-... https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/layoffs-begin-dutch-universities-deep-budget-cuts-bite https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/layoffs-begin-dutc... It gets a lot more vindictive than this. For example, one of the few things that is getting increased funding is debt collection. Also, the laws are getting "strengthened" (e.g. pensions are no longer untouchable for debt collectors in France). There's a saying "you can't whip blood out of a stone", by which they mean that you can't get money from the poorest of the poor. Clearly, the plan is to lash the poor until blood comes out. It's not like the economic theory these governments claim, in their high school economy courses, clearly states that governments should save when things go well, like the last 15 years, and then seriously increase expenses in times like these ... Otherwise, given that they saved less than nothing, those courses amount to lying to essentially every student in the EU. Hell, given that it's lying about the money of these students, you could argue it's fraud ... Oh wait ... that's exactly what they teach.
aworks 1y ago
'“The wealth creation will happen to Texas teachers and California public-sector employees, not to European pensioners,” said Stephan Leithner, CEO of Deutsche Börse, operator of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.' Well, ok.

43 points by mudil 1y ago

funny to note how Europe is considered more socialist and America more capitalist, but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism, whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments. Of course, not much power is derived through American ownership of the means of production via the stock market because that power is delegated to the institutions who have the actual control, serving the same role as the politburo, for instance, in more ostensibly communist systems.

luckylion 1y ago
While the public doesn't have immediate power, it has a lot of freedom. If you manage your retirement fund, you can use it in whatever way you want. Buy a boat. Start a company. Gamble it all away in a week. A lot of European countries have a much more paternal approach. Citizens can't be trusted to make good decisions, so they only receive part of their salary, and the rest is being managed "for them" - and that's non-negotiable (but there are some exceptions). A lot more stable, but a lot less free because you have a guardian making those decisions for you.
- tfourb 1y ago
  This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners. This system has its problems, mostly demographics with fewer young people entering the workforce and an unwillingness to fill the gap with immigration, but it has nothing to do with not trusting people to make their own decisions. It’s simply a historically grown approach which actually has worked quite well (and better than in the US for a greater share of society) for over a century.
  - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
    > This is not what happens. European public pension systems are mostly based on a solidarity system in which current wage earners pay for the pensions of current pensioners. It is a big Ponzi scheme, and now that fewer people are joining the workforce, governments borrow money to pay pensions. And a duscretiinary power to decide how much a retired worker gets. Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it. The American way is actually the mote fairer system. Could be even more fair if you did mot have to pay tax on your pension gains from stocks inventments and whatnot.
    - yo_ean 1y ago
      How would European pensioners in 1950 be paid their pension with the American system? Note all savings they had went to zero in the decades before.
      - ExoticPearTree 1y ago
        They should have gone back to work. It would have sucked, but they wouldn’t have been a burden on the current generation back then who did not start the war or went through the great depression.
    - tfourb 1y ago
      Depends on your definition of "fair" and if you value that fairness more than social solidarity. I personally do not think it is "fair" that your basic human dignity in retirement statistically depends to a large extend on the wealth and social status of the parents that you were born to. I would actually argue (and many EU constitutions are based around this principle) that no matter your personal or your parents' contribution to the economy or society, you should be guaranteed a certain level of dignity, care and security. The classical "Old World" social system is based around solidarity. Solidarity of the young with the old, of the healthy with the sick, of the fortunate with the unlucky. It has produced much better results for a far greater share of society and with much less inherent risk than the "everyone for their own" system of ultimate individual responsibility that the US has largely favored. Where it has failed it was largely due to the "neoliberal turn" of the 1990s and 2000s. It's clearly due for an overhaul, but there are good options to do so. Europe's societies are waelthier, both in absolute term, as well as on average per capital, than they've ever been. What's missing is largely the political will to commit to the principle of solidarity over the resistance of monied interests that would benefit from a stronger turn to individualism. And I challenge you to look at the results of the mostly private health and pensions systems in the US on a factual and comparative basis and claim that they produce inherently better results. "Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it." Again, this is not how it works. I.e. in Germany there are actual laws governing the setting of pensions. And while these laws can be changed by parliament (though not by "bureaucrats"), they are rooted in constitutional principles that set guardrails for any reform.
- lucketone 1y ago
  Your analysis is fully correct. I want to add one more aspect to this. If I gamble my pension away, I have detrimental effect on my neighbours and the rest of society. Sure I could work for a little longer, but not for too long. One non-exhaustive example: If I don’t die right after my last contract ends, it means I’m consuming food and have some kind of shelter, which is payed by somebody.
  - luckylion 1y ago
    That's the stability vs risk trade-off, I think. The European approach is much more stable, but stability isn't free. I'd compare it to investing in the stock market (volatility & good yield) vs investing in government bonds (more secure, you know what you'll get back after they mature, lower yield).
dlcarrier 1y ago
I think what's more important isn't who runs current production, but who can start future production. The people of the US own the means of production because they can legally start their own companies, with relatively low barriers to entry, to replace the ones currently in power. The US has far more protectionism and other barriers to entry than it did when it seized the means of production from England, through the Boston tea party and the revolution that followed, but it still has enough freedom of business that it easily beats the European Union in pretty much every developing field. Where the American Revolution differes from communist reviolutions is that, after seizing the means of production from a repressive government, the revolutionaries' new government did not hold onto the means of production through a planned economy, but instead held effectively zero economic oversight, leaving production open to a free market and anyone who wished to participate in it.
motorest 1y ago
> (...) but in America, the public owns the means of production through pension-based stock market ownership, which is one of the core tenets of communism (...) Do they own it, though? Or is the US public relegated to a position of financing investment corporations without any ownership or control in exchange for a fraction of the profits and the bulk of the losses? If anything, the US public seems to be used as a strategy to lower investment risks of investment firms. > (...) whereas this article points out European pensions are state-based or through bond investments. The "state-based" aspect which you are casually glancing over refers to full blown income redistribution schemes, where everyone's paycheck, being rich or poor, is proportionally deducted to finance retirement pensions, unemployment benefits, parental leaves, and even medical leaves. Do you think that paying a corporation to invest in the stock market is more socialist than this?
- 9rx 1y ago
  > Do they own it, though? Yes. Do they control it? If you really get right down to it, technically also yes. If the public banded together to get things done, it would get done. But as with anything shared by millions people in the real world there becomes a disconnect between the people and in the chaos of lack of communication and no shared will to get things done a few actors end up usurping control. So in practice, no. But, I mean, that has always been the criticism of socialism — that a few actors end up taking control — so no surprises there.
9rx 1y ago
> which is one of the core tenets of communism One of the core tenants of the Communist Party, who believe (on paper, at least) that socialism is the path to enabling post-scarcity. Communism is an imagined sci-fi world where we've already achieved post-scarcity; Star Trek is a more modern adaptation of the same idea. If it has anything resembling "core tenants", there being no ownership is one of them. It is imagined that in a post-scarcity world, ownership doesn't mean anything.

neonate 1y ago

https://archive.md/XiL3M https://archive.md/XiL3M

crinkly 1y ago

WSJ are pushing it there. Depends what you mean by dominance. The US market is propped up on hyped big tech investments with little chance of ROI for shareholders other than inflating the valuations. PE ratio is quite frankly bananas too. At some point it’s going to be absolute carnage. Private investment companies have already seen the end game and from direct observation have been pushing the hype to drive volume so they can shift their holdings on to the bagholders. Good luck. It’s not a stable market. It’s fucked.

dlcarrier 1y ago
Multiple branches of the US government regularly go after business for having too high of a profit margin. I really don't blame businesses for holding onto their cash, instead of making stock disbursments, when that's exactly what they are incentivized to do.
- devoutsalsa 1y ago
  I really wish they’d ban stock buybacks. When executives get paid in stock options, they want the stock price as high as possible. The easiest way? Buy back shares to make the remaining ones worth more. But when companies do this while their stock is overpriced, they’re wasting shareholder money on expensive shares. Executives pad their own pockets while shareholders get screwed. I’d rather see companies pay better dividends or keep the cash. At least then shareholders actually benefit instead of just watching executives get richer.
  - dlcarrier 1y ago
    That happens because of a Clinton administration regulation that was meant to reduce executive pay, but instead incentivized raising it: https://www.propublica.org/article/the-executive-pay-cap-that-backfired https://www.propublica.org/article/the-executive-pay-cap-tha...
motorest 1y ago
I don't know who is downvoting this post. The fact that companies such as Tesla as being featured as meme stocks for years, with valuations that bear no relationship to performance let alone fundamentais, is a clear indicator that the house of cards can tip at any moment.

tfourb 1y ago

„Higher pay for U.S. executives is another draw. Peter Jackson, the chief executive of Flutter, which owns the betting platform FanDuel, nearly tripled his compensation after the gambling company moved its main stock listing to New York last year from London.“ Well, I think we solved the riddle …

ur-whale 1y ago

https://archive.is/XiL3M https://archive.is/XiL3M

elcritch 1y ago

I hope that the European Union reforms its bankruptcy laws to match those in the US. Bankruptcy clemency is one of those key advantages the US has to really enable entrepreneurship. Another one in California is no non-competes. As an American I want to see the EU be economically vibrant!

anonzzzies 1y ago
No non competes are there in some countries (not sure how many but at least where I had companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on as they don't hold up). And bankruptcy, again where I have had companies, is not really a big issue if you didn't do illegal stuff. You mostly have to show your accounting is proper and you didn't do anything bad. Really not that complex. People do still put a stigma on it; I had 20 companies, 3 bankruptcies, 10000+ jobs made, 100m+ in taxes paid and still people whine about the bankruptcies; but it is not hard to execute. What makes the US easier outside less stigma?
- RugnirViking 1y ago
  Having tried myself in the EU; access to capital. People as far as I can remember there's something between 5-50x as much capital going around in America. For industries outside of strict software, you NEED capital to get going. Can't bootstrap medical trials.
  - anonzzzies 1y ago
    Yeah that's true. We never needed much capital (we are software/hardware) but if we would have then it is a lot harder. That said; I raised Euro 10m in a bar in spain without even any paperwork. But if you need a billion, I would say that's just much easier in the US.

roenxi 1y ago

The article seems to roughly match the headline - I don't know why we're sourcing the WSJ to comment on Europe's policy with ideas like "emergency" or "wake up call"s. The Europeans are the ones with the opinions that matter on this one, presumably they think this is all acceptable given that they've been heading in this direction for a decade (if not decades), cheerfully willing to bear the consequences of being less business-friendly than the States (to say nothing of China). I'm not even sure we can call this unintended consequences - there seems to be some acceptance that Europe is going to be #3 when it comes to raw economic power. I can make a forecast - anyone outside the US who lets their policy positions be swayed by the US press is heading for a disaster. Even if the Americans turn out to be accurate in their opinions. Countries need to maintain their own internal dialogue. It'd be more interesting to be looking at what the British, or even the Germans and French think about the situation. They're the ones with the levers.

chaostheory 1y ago
Why Germany? Isn’t Germany already in a demographic crisis that’s nearly impossible to recover from?
LaurensBER 1y ago
European here. I feel that our priorities have been on social/climate issues. For a very long time the feeling was that we had enough prosperity and that more was nice but that it was not as important. There was some serious talk about "de-growth" and the trend (for some groups) was mostly towards working less but maintaining the same standard. Among left political circles it seemed that the focus was on doing the most good, for the most people and this focus often lay outside of Europe. To put this in a historical context, many Europeans (especially Germans) feel that we have historical sins to atone for. We trusted the US and were happy to see them succeed. To a lesser degree we trusted China and Russia and we figured that they would make (economical) rational choices to codependency was seen as a strength and not a weakness. It's very clear that we were in some degrees naïve and lazy and wasted opportunities and choices. Europe occasionally needs a good crisis to get going again, I'm glad we're finally getting one.
- 1y ago

ath3nd 1y ago

No, it's not. Nothing stock market is relevant or important.

dzonga 1y ago

what's not spoken about is the moral posturing of western countries the uk/e.u etc that has affected their global markets. without their moral posturing - dubai wouldn't exist.in 3rd world countries a while back in the 90s companies would dual-list on their home exchange and the LSE. win-win. back then visas were not difficult to get etc or you could travel visa free if part of commonwealth. now the shaddy business dealers would rather prefer dubai were they're not lectured about the moral failures of their business practices or who they associate with. trump for all his failures was able to recognize this - hence one of his first trips was to the GCC.

spwa4 1y ago

Don't worry, EU governments have already JUMPED into action. They have collectively decided they will make the rich richer and use whatever means required to insulate the government from the economy. Zero economic compromises when it comes to government's own functioning ... You know, things that absolutely do not matter for competitveness. So the plan is to save their way to growth. For example: less students, less research, less teaching (including at lower levels), less ... https://universitytimes.ie/2025/05/french-students-protest-budget-cuts-to-colleges-and-the-arts/ https://universitytimes.ie/2025/05/french-students-protest-b... https://www.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/higher-education-budget-cuts-universities-concerned-about-baden-wuerttembergs-future-viability/ https://www.uni-mannheim.de/en/news/higher-education-budget-... https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/layoffs-begin-dutch-universities-deep-budget-cuts-bite https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/layoffs-begin-dutc... It gets a lot more vindictive than this. For example, one of the few things that is getting increased funding is debt collection. Also, the laws are getting "strengthened" (e.g. pensions are no longer untouchable for debt collectors in France). There's a saying "you can't whip blood out of a stone", by which they mean that you can't get money from the poorest of the poor. Clearly, the plan is to lash the poor until blood comes out. It's not like the economic theory these governments claim, in their high school economy courses, clearly states that governments should save when things go well, like the last 15 years, and then seriously increase expenses in times like these ... Otherwise, given that they saved less than nothing, those courses amount to lying to essentially every student in the EU. Hell, given that it's lying about the money of these students, you could argue it's fraud ... Oh wait ... that's exactly what they teach.

aworks 1y ago

'“The wealth creation will happen to Texas teachers and California public-sector employees, not to European pensioners,” said Stephan Leithner, CEO of Deutsche Börse, operator of the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.' Well, ok.