5 ms·

We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed t

We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed the rules.

calvinmorrison 5mo ago
except the last bubble pop hit fast and hard with post covid inflation.
- BobbyJo 5mo ago
  It worked. The only people upset about it are young people who don't vote. If young people don't want a continual wealth transfer from them to the old, they need to start voting. That's been the case since 2008, and here we are a generation later.
  - HDBaseT 5mo ago
    You mean the young people who cannot (or could not) vote because they are under 18? Also very bold of you to assume voting does much. (coming from a 22 year old who votes at every federal, state and local election).
    - layer8 5mo ago
      The way people voted in the last federal election did a whole lot. Granted, it’s effectively limited to people in swing states.
    - BobbyJo 5mo ago
      People under 40 have much lower voter turnout than people over 40. 75% of 65+ year olds vote. Less than 50% of 18-25 year olds vote. I wasn't referring to children.
  - dranudin 5mo ago
    Old people will be the majority for the foreseeable future, though. To be honest, the only strategy that I currently see for young people is waiting and growing old, unfortunately..
  - Ray20 5mo ago
    This is a well-known affliction of democracy. Logically, it seems insane that people who live on other people's taxes have the right to vote. Officials, public sector employees, and anyone else who receives money from the government rather than contributes to it shouldn't vote.
  - MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
    It's hard to take the "just vote" seriously after the rash of gerrymandering happening in the south. Some elections were even downright cancelled.
    - cindyllm 5mo ago
      [dead]
    - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
      It's possible that the gerrymandering will come back to bite them. It doesn't give them more votes, it just spreads them thinner over more seats. Which means if the blue wave is larger than expected a lot of their "safe" seats will suddenly be blue instead.
freakynit 5mo ago
It looks less like capitalism and more like socialism for the rich, marketed as free markets. Print money. Push most of it into cheap credit for giant corporations and asset owners. Let a little trickle into the real economy so ordinary people feel temporary relief. Then let inflation quietly do the dirty work. The public pays through higher prices, weaker savings, and future debt. The powerful collect the upside. That is the game: privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and call it capitalism. And all of this is legal under the disguise of "protecting the economy for regular folks", and they can keep doing it repeatedly.
- deleted 5mo ago
  [deleted]

We don't let bubbles pop anymore. We print money and borrow from the future so that no one loses money on their homes and retirement accounts. The GFC changed the rules.

calvinmorrison 5mo ago

except the last bubble pop hit fast and hard with post covid inflation.

BobbyJo 5mo ago
It worked. The only people upset about it are young people who don't vote. If young people don't want a continual wealth transfer from them to the old, they need to start voting. That's been the case since 2008, and here we are a generation later.
- HDBaseT 5mo ago
  You mean the young people who cannot (or could not) vote because they are under 18? Also very bold of you to assume voting does much. (coming from a 22 year old who votes at every federal, state and local election).
  - layer8 5mo ago
    The way people voted in the last federal election did a whole lot. Granted, it’s effectively limited to people in swing states.
  - BobbyJo 5mo ago
    People under 40 have much lower voter turnout than people over 40. 75% of 65+ year olds vote. Less than 50% of 18-25 year olds vote. I wasn't referring to children.
- dranudin 5mo ago
  Old people will be the majority for the foreseeable future, though. To be honest, the only strategy that I currently see for young people is waiting and growing old, unfortunately..
- Ray20 5mo ago
  This is a well-known affliction of democracy. Logically, it seems insane that people who live on other people's taxes have the right to vote. Officials, public sector employees, and anyone else who receives money from the government rather than contributes to it shouldn't vote.
- MSFT_Edging 5mo ago
  It's hard to take the "just vote" seriously after the rash of gerrymandering happening in the south. Some elections were even downright cancelled.
  - cindyllm 5mo ago
    [dead]
  - amanaplanacanal 5mo ago
    It's possible that the gerrymandering will come back to bite them. It doesn't give them more votes, it just spreads them thinner over more seats. Which means if the blue wave is larger than expected a lot of their "safe" seats will suddenly be blue instead.

freakynit 5mo ago

It looks less like capitalism and more like socialism for the rich, marketed as free markets. Print money. Push most of it into cheap credit for giant corporations and asset owners. Let a little trickle into the real economy so ordinary people feel temporary relief. Then let inflation quietly do the dirty work. The public pays through higher prices, weaker savings, and future debt. The powerful collect the upside. That is the game: privatize the profits, socialize the losses, and call it capitalism. And all of this is legal under the disguise of "protecting the economy for regular folks", and they can keep doing it repeatedly.

deleted 5mo ago
[deleted]