8 ms·

I have this huge looming sensation private credit will trigger a mini 2008, but instead of investors sucking up the losses, as they should, american taxpayers w

I have this huge looming sensation private credit will trigger a mini 2008, but instead of investors sucking up the losses, as they should, american taxpayers will be left with the bill.

allthetime 7mo ago
Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. I won't hold my breath though.
- joe_mamba 7mo ago
  >Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. How?
  - allthetime 7mo ago
    Use your imagination, or, read some history.
    - gruez 7mo ago
      >or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.
      - hananova 7mo ago
        Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
      - kgwxd 7mo ago
        That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
        gruez 7mo ago
        >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
        kgwxd 7mo ago
        > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
        gruez 7mo ago
        >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
      - tombert 7mo ago
        Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
      - tryauuum 7mo ago
        to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.
  - fn-mote 7mo ago
    Telling your senator and representative would be a logical starting place. Then organize like every other movement; study the US in the 1960s.
    - joe_mamba 7mo ago
      >study the US in the 1960s. The US was a vastly different country in the 1960's than today from all points of view. Plebs had way more social cohesions and unity, and lot more bargaining power over the wealthy and politicians, when communism was the main enemy and all working class jobs hadn't been yet shipped abroad and PE hadn't yet monopolized ownership of housing and everything else and the US industrial elites didn't have doomsday bunkers in Hawaii and New Zealand. What I'm saying is what worked then won't work now because the context is completely different.
      - roughly 7mo ago
        The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        and that is supposed to mean what in this context?
        roughly 7mo ago
        It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You are a participant, not an observer.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You keep avoiding to answer the main question: How? And when you answer how, answer why that hasn't already worked.
tombert 7mo ago
A part of me was hoping that with LLMs getting better and better at mimicking corporate nothing-speak that we'd realize that we can automate away a lot of the executives, Vice Presidents, and CEOs. Of course that was a naive hope on my end; if history has taught us anything, executives at big companies appear to only be skilled at one thing: shielding themselves from the consequences of their awful decisions. Instead of automating away a job that is mostly about blathering on with half-truths about the future of the company (something that AI could actually do perfectly fine), they instead think they can fire half the engineers and replace them with a Claude Code.
- ep103 7mo ago
  I see this sentiment repeated so often, and its so surprising to me that people have this train of thought. If our society was organized around the needs of workers, and existed to help workers compete at their crafts (somehow), then this would make sense. But it isn't. Every one of our jobs exists as a contract that was initially offered by an owner of capital, and created in order to make that person more money. As such, ownership is literally the _only_ job that will never be replaced, because it is the atom from which all the rest of the market's building blocks have been built. AI could replace every job in the market, and company-owner would be the only job left untouched, because every other job in existence, ultimately, has been created to serve that person, not the other way around.
  - Tade0 7mo ago
    A CEO is an employee just like any other and reports to the shareholders. It's just that they're typically also a shareholder.
    - fn-mote 7mo ago
      I don’t think this is about jobs. I think this is about information, power, and access to power. The way a company with a bad C-suite gets fixed is by being competed out of existence. The way workers with bad bosses can fix that is imo limited, mostly to “find another job”. I’m curious if anyone has ever heard of “complain to the board during the CEO’s renewal phase” being successful. It didn’t happen at places I know about.
BigTTYGothGF 7mo ago
> american taxpayers will be left with the bill So just like 2008.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
krsw 7mo ago
Socialize the losses, privatize the profits has never been more true
anjel 7mo ago
Large Pension Funds have significant exposure to private credit... https://www.calpers.ca.gov/documents/202603-invest-agenda-item03a-04-a-mar17/download https://www.calpers.ca.gov/documents/202603-invest-agenda-it...
guzfip 7mo ago
> american taxpayers will be left with the bill. If the country isn’t on fire afterwards, I’m giving up on it.
ericmcer 7mo ago
I mean that was what happened in 2008 just over a multi-year timeline. In 2020 they managed to get the market to recover in a few months. Maybe this time they will only let it go down for a couple days.

I have this huge looming sensation private credit will trigger a mini 2008, but instead of investors sucking up the losses, as they should, american taxpayers will be left with the bill.

allthetime 7mo ago

Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. I won't hold my breath though.

joe_mamba 7mo ago
>Not if American tax payers stand up, fight back, and demand better. How?
- allthetime 7mo ago
  Use your imagination, or, read some history.
  - gruez 7mo ago
    >or, read some history. If you're trying to make a veiled reference to the french revolution, keep in mind that's also ostensibly what the Jan 6th rioters thought they were doing, though arguably a lighter version. "Let's have a violent revolution to kill the elites" sounds like a great idea, until you realize that it works for the other side as well.
    - hananova 7mo ago
      Thing is, they did get everything they wanted with a bit of a delay. So in essence they proved that violent uprisings work.
    - kgwxd 7mo ago
      That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. BLM was individuals responding to seeing, _with their own eyes_, power being blatantly abused _by government officials_, live on TV, many, many times.
      - gruez 7mo ago
        >That's bullshit. Same nonsense as equating J6 and BLM. Since when did I bring in BLM? >J6 was a _government official_, with no evidence, inciting violence in people that _did not care about evidence_. They did not think, period. So your only objection to Jan 6th was that the person inciting political violence was a government official and/or there wasn't "evidence" (whatever that means)? Nothing about violence itself? I guess a non-government official calling for the CEO of JPM or Ben Bernanke to be decapitated, citing some gini coefficient graphs is fine?
        kgwxd 7mo ago
        > Since when did I bring in BLM? You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM, people seeing, with their own eyes, blatant abuse of power, and acting, sans "leader". We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. > So your only objection... People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but, since I can see why the roles played by government officials requires special consideration (extraordinary powers, supposedly granted by "The People", checks and balances, and such), if Biden had done even 1 of the hundreds of things Trump had, I would still be on the same side of this argument. Would you be?
        gruez 7mo ago
        >You didn't. You did a false dichotomy, then both-sides'd your argument. Presumably "hack back" being one side, and J6s the other. I'm likening "hack back" to BLM So saying that political violence is bad, and pointing out an example where the other side did political violence is "both-sides"? >We should all be on the "side" of being against blatant abuse of power, when we actually see it. Again, you haven't answered my question. It sounds like you wouldn't have any issue with Jan 6th if Trump wasn't involved, and it was just grassroots election denialism. >People should legally be allowed to say whatever they want but No, I specifically referring to "veiled reference to the french revolution", which implies some sort of political violence, not just something like BLM protests.
    - tombert 7mo ago
      Mapping out the actual "ethics" of the J6 people has been difficult for me. It butts up against how I generally define "good" and "bad". For an easy example, a guy murdering his wife for the insurance money is someone that I can pretty easily call "bad". That's would be hurting someone to enrich yourself, which I think we can agree is pretty bad. But on an "individual morality" level, it's hard for me to directly condemn the J6 people. If they genuinely believed the election was stolen, and if they genuinely believed that the only way to save America was by invading the capital, and they were willing to do it at great risk to themselves with very little personal benefit, it's hard for me to directly say that they're "bad" people. Dumb, misguided people doing a bad thing, but they're doing what they think is right. To be clear, I think the J6 people were very stupid, and I think it's horrible that the orange idiot lying about some election fraud in order to overthrow democracy is a very very very bad thing.
    - tryauuum 7mo ago
      to be honest, the only downside with this idea is that in case you succeed, you are left with a group of people who like killing elites (and who can switch their definition of "elites" to include you)
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >read some history History books say that ...oh ...starts flipping frantically ... oh no! Yeah, no that's not gonna happen and you also don't want that.
- fn-mote 7mo ago
  Telling your senator and representative would be a logical starting place. Then organize like every other movement; study the US in the 1960s.
  - joe_mamba 7mo ago
    >study the US in the 1960s. The US was a vastly different country in the 1960's than today from all points of view. Plebs had way more social cohesions and unity, and lot more bargaining power over the wealthy and politicians, when communism was the main enemy and all working class jobs hadn't been yet shipped abroad and PE hadn't yet monopolized ownership of housing and everything else and the US industrial elites didn't have doomsday bunkers in Hawaii and New Zealand. What I'm saying is what worked then won't work now because the context is completely different.
    - roughly 7mo ago
      The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago.
      - joe_mamba 7mo ago
        and that is supposed to mean what in this context?
        roughly 7mo ago
        It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You are a participant, not an observer.
        joe_mamba 7mo ago
        >It means if you want the world to be different than it is, get out there and start making it that way. You keep avoiding to answer the main question: How? And when you answer how, answer why that hasn't already worked.

tombert 7mo ago

A part of me was hoping that with LLMs getting better and better at mimicking corporate nothing-speak that we'd realize that we can automate away a lot of the executives, Vice Presidents, and CEOs. Of course that was a naive hope on my end; if history has taught us anything, executives at big companies appear to only be skilled at one thing: shielding themselves from the consequences of their awful decisions. Instead of automating away a job that is mostly about blathering on with half-truths about the future of the company (something that AI could actually do perfectly fine), they instead think they can fire half the engineers and replace them with a Claude Code.

ep103 7mo ago
I see this sentiment repeated so often, and its so surprising to me that people have this train of thought. If our society was organized around the needs of workers, and existed to help workers compete at their crafts (somehow), then this would make sense. But it isn't. Every one of our jobs exists as a contract that was initially offered by an owner of capital, and created in order to make that person more money. As such, ownership is literally the _only_ job that will never be replaced, because it is the atom from which all the rest of the market's building blocks have been built. AI could replace every job in the market, and company-owner would be the only job left untouched, because every other job in existence, ultimately, has been created to serve that person, not the other way around.
- Tade0 7mo ago
  A CEO is an employee just like any other and reports to the shareholders. It's just that they're typically also a shareholder.
  - fn-mote 7mo ago
    I don’t think this is about jobs. I think this is about information, power, and access to power. The way a company with a bad C-suite gets fixed is by being competed out of existence. The way workers with bad bosses can fix that is imo limited, mostly to “find another job”. I’m curious if anyone has ever heard of “complain to the board during the CEO’s renewal phase” being successful. It didn’t happen at places I know about.

BigTTYGothGF 7mo ago

> american taxpayers will be left with the bill So just like 2008.

deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]

krsw 7mo ago

Socialize the losses, privatize the profits has never been more true

anjel 7mo ago

Large Pension Funds have significant exposure to private credit... https://www.calpers.ca.gov/documents/202603-invest-agenda-item03a-04-a-mar17/download https://www.calpers.ca.gov/documents/202603-invest-agenda-it...

guzfip 7mo ago

> american taxpayers will be left with the bill. If the country isn’t on fire afterwards, I’m giving up on it.

ericmcer 7mo ago

I mean that was what happened in 2008 just over a multi-year timeline. In 2020 they managed to get the market to recover in a few months. Maybe this time they will only let it go down for a couple days.