4 ms·
If you can manipulate the market why not do it? Literally no one benefits from the alternative.
by deadbabe 2mo ago
If you can manipulate the market why not do it?
Literally no one benefits from the alternative.
- sph 2mo agoManipulation of the market never comes for free. You just delay, and render unpredictable, the eventual reckoning, for short-term benefits. It will be interesting to see who’s gonna blame the free market when that day arrives.
- Supermancho 2mo ago> You just delay, and render unpredictable, the eventual reckoning, for short-term benefits. After a century, those short-term benefits add up to a long term benefit.
- uncivilized 2mo agoYou plan on being here for over a century?
- dcrazy 2mo agoManipulating the market is literally the job of both the Treasury and the FOMC. It’s how we enact monetary policy.
- throwaway132448 2mo ago> Literally no one benefits from the alternative. Future you might disagree with present you. But even if we disregard time, I think millions of consumers would benefit from the opportunity to have competitive markets again. If an actual economic forest fire was allowed to burn, we might eliminate some of the too-big-to-fail corruption and oligopoly that is the norm now and provide space for new seeds to grow.
- deadbabe 2mo agoYou can’t have competition forever. At some point someone wins decisively, and then there is only the illusion of competition.
- hilariously 2mo agoWe already have anti-trust and other regulation to manage this problem, we simply need to use it. There's no end of competition, the world changes, companies bloat and make bad choices, smaller competitors can react and change faster - it's only in our corporate hegemony that we don't consider that a viable alternative.
- inigyou 2mo agoEnd of antitrust is the decisive victory.
- deadbabe 2mo agoCompanies also learn from history, and with enough data, can make perfect decisions in real time. The end result, is you end up with “Final Companies”, where a market becomes so dominated an entrant cannot even start up, because it requires operating to even greater perfection just to stay in the game.
- Shocka1 2mo agoIBM and American car companies enter the chat, just to name a few...
- vajrabum 2mo agoThe problem with this idea which is common in some circles is that most of the businesses involved are commodity or lowish margin. They likely got built either with government support or before the current margin's were a thing. Becdause you can't make a high enough ROI on building a new competitor your seeds will likely die in barren soil never having germinated. In today's markets the likely result will be increased business going to China, India, Vietnam and the like. If you're talking about banking then the worst possible scenario at a national level is that you're borrowing money denominated in a foreign currency. The adventure after 1929 was a result of deliberate policy to liquidate and let it burn.
- ProllyInfamous 2mo agoWe need an alternative, because a nation servicing interest on debt as its #1 fiscal line-item is historically irrecoverable #2027 #ThisTimeIsDifferent? My proposed alternative is that we must accept (as individual nations, perhaps some even balkanized) that austerity measures are irreversible, globally. We cannot help everybody. We should not help anybody until we've helped our own countrymen/fellow-neighbors, first. ---- Even Warren Buffett agrees (and his heavily interviewed) espousing the necessity of taxing high net-worth individuals at higher rates (in his definition, $20M+ net-worth). He is not alone in Billionaires quotes similarly. No Trillionaire has yet agreed with this statement, and fortunately this "accomplishment" must again (thankfully IMHO) wait to become precedent.