I'm speaking in the broad and general sense. Stock purchasing is for day traders and portfolio managers, and yes some of their clients may win or lose big, but assuming that investors have insight on the whole, they will wait and begin buying when appropriate. It's more about the concentration of value (that which affects the inequality of overall wealth distribution. Those rich enough to own or purchase significant stock positions are one example of *rich*, but really my point is that the richer you are, the less you are affected, and the more you stand to gain, relatively speaking.

We can also look at things from the operational side of business; how many small businesses are going to shutter as a result? (if you appreciate gutsy investment, small business entrepreneurs face ridiculous odds and create value directly even wen they fail). Unless they provide a covid-relevant service, they may not make it through the next few months. I suspect Amazon is going to benefit immensely from this.

Never before have such large proportions and swaths of the honeycombs been owned or controlled by so few (this is a problem that inadvertently stems from imperfect markets).

The other side of the flipping coin you've impressed is actually the failure itself; it wasn't that we actually ever needed kings, it's that we were either to escape the direct (usually force based) control they exerted (maybe because of markets, or maybe because the king's power system collapsed). We still have a system that enforces a particularly lord like way of things (Bezos is bona fide global Baron).

If necessary, we can conceptualize the social contract strictly as the set of sentiments and agreements that holds back social chaos or revolution. To progress we must adapt these agreements, else sooner or later circumstances will find a critical exception.

Although I went too far when I claimed Bernie was unelectable, the fact is that the data suggests he's got a lesser chance than Biden. Do you agree that it's reasonable to take that into account when voting in the primary? — Relativist

Sure. I disagree with it for a number of reasons, but it's a respectable position.

On the other hand, if someone's top priority is to move toward a more just social system, one might choose to take more risk and vote for Bernie. I'm not going to tell them it's wrong to take that risk, but I would like them to be aware that they ARE taking that risk. — Relativist

Yes, and there's an argument to be made there. But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. Now you have to ask: How popular are the proposals? What are the odds that they're implemented, and does it matter? And how much better for the country is this set of policies over the other?

Then there's the fair argument about the 2018 midterms, where only the more "moderate" candidates won in the swing districts, and where the "progressives" (or those closer to Sanders in proposals) all lost. Thus, how would Sanders effect down-ballot races? But to me that's really just an argument for people not turning out if Bernie were the nominee, to voting third party because they're so turned off by him or his policies. I see it far more likely that it's Sanders' supporters who stay home or vote third party, unfortunately.

If someone shows up to vote for someone as progressive as Sanders, then by their argument the moderate democrats would stay home and it wouldn't effect down-ballot races at all. I think the Democratic voters are motivated enough to vote for almost anyone over Trump, so if either Biden or Sanders lose some portion, so be it. It's either gonna be a wash, or the Sanders people will stay home in higher percentage. Now the question becomes, on top of that, who do we think turns out the most NEW voters? Who taps into the biggest voting bloc in the country (the non-voters)? The Sanders camp argues that he would, and there's good reason to believe it: he does overwhelmingly well with younger voters. And they're an active bunch, even if they're not yet voting in the numbers they should vote in. They're also the future of the party and the country. What do THEY want? What excites them?

These are all questions to ask. This isn't the easiest thing to figure out, but analyzing the demographics and projections are very important. The Republican party recognizes this, in fact. That's why they try subtle (and not-so-subtle) tactics to suppress minority voters and overall voter turnout.

In a nut shell, the rich are going to get relatively and absolutely richer as a result of coronavirus, due to the mere happenstance of economic inequality (not as a result of creating value for society). What makes this appalling to me is that it's the average middle class and below schmucks paying the actual price, while private corporations lap up the blood and sweat as pure profit (even my local grocery store seems to have jacked prices...).

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart? — VagabondSpectre

I do believe you're right. There's a very volatile populist trend right now, though -- on both left and right. So the government (republicans and democrats) may actually come together to fight it, because a recession causes a lot of popular uprising, and the last one is still in our memory. People will be coming for them, and they know it. So watch for mild aid packages and other half measures to keep a decent amount of people covered. The working class poor will suffer the most, as always.

Never before have such large proportions and swaths of the honeycombs been owned or controlled by so few (this is a problem that inadvertently stems from imperfect markets). — VagabondSpectre

Wealth de-concentrates during depressions. We haven't had one in a while, so I'd easily believe we're at a peak.

it wasn't that we actually ever needed kings, it's that we were either to escape the direct (usually force based) control they exerted (maybe because of markets, or maybe because the king's power system collapsed). We still have a system that enforces a particularly lord like way of things (Bezos is bona fide global Baron). — VagabondSpectre

We're all one conglomerate, that's what I'm trying to explain. Kings don't succeed because they're controlling people. They succeed because the societies they rule are robust. A human society is like a large living organism and the king is a critical component. There actually isn't anything in the animal world that compares to human societies. The size and complexity of even a little township is beyond what any other animal can do. Now consider what the USA is. Before you claim that it's broken, first consider how it's engineered in the first place.

In order to do that, I think you'll have to stop worrying about fairness for a second, and look at how it evolved.

If necessary, we can conceptualize the social contract strictly as the set of sentiments and agreements that holds back social chaos or revolution. — VagabondSpectre

Social chaos isn't being held back. We are expressing our potential through human governments.

Stock purchasing is for day traders and portfolio managers

You know that you can also do this? I do this and I wouldn't really consider myself either unless I'm my own "portfolio manager."

but assuming that investors have insight on the whole, they will wait and begin buying when appropriate.

This is questionable. Traditional financial wisdom advises against timing the market, and instead riding out the storm. Of course in this case we may just need to make an exception (personally, I have sold most of my holdings). In any case, over the past few decades fund managers have not generally speaking outperformed the S&P.

but really my point is that the richer you are, the less you are affected, and the more you stand to gain, relatively speaking.

I feel like we need to define "affected" here a little better. On one hand, the wealthy have lost more than the poor in dollar terms this past week by far. Generally speaking, it seems like people are getting knocked down a peg - so everyone becomes less wealthy. On the very bottom of the social ladder you have the homeless who probably aren't affected by this very much at all. But above them are the poor who are now in a serious situation and threatened with homelessness. The middle class now risk becoming poor in a recession and the wealthy may risk becoming middle class or less wealthy.

If the rich are trying to time the market then they have more to gain and also more to lose if they mistime it. I think if everything were to crash we'd all be more equal, relatively speaking. You would just have a ton of wealth destroyed and everyone would be poor. Even if a rich person did time the market well who would buy his products?

I'm arguing that what you said, given the context, has misleading implications. The discussion was centered on presidential elections. Making general comments about polling is fine, but why announce general skepticism and the importance of questioning them given this specific context? What is the implication there? We know how well the presidential polls have faired -- they have a long history, plenty of good scholarship on them.

So I guess the real question is ere you denying what *I* said was true? If not, your comment is fairly trivial and poorly timed. — Xtrix

Well, that's certainly understandable. No. I'm not denying that presidential polling is accurate. Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context...

Would different questions being asked change both outcomes, the poll and the election?

I think it could and often does. Group think. Indoctrination. Etc. I think Jung called it the collective conscious, or words to that affect/effect. That's a legitimate vein of thought...especially in this context. I think you'd agree.

By the way, you were right. After I reread our exchanges, I definitely did come off as being an asshole...

My apologies.

:flower:

No worries, bro.

Too kind. I may have told myself to fuck off!

:wink:

I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Rather, I'm wondering to what extent the polling is itself influenced by virtue of the participant selection process and the framing of the questions... which, in turn, makes me wonder to what extent the actual election is influenced by the same. Nothing trivial about that at all... given both, the timing and the context... — creativesoul

The participant selection process and framing of the questions. Yes, very legitimate questions about polling. Gallup has plenty of information about the process, the randomness of sampling, sampling sizes, statistical analyses, etc. Remember that it is important for business and politicians to have a clear understanding on where the public is. It really matters, and thus it's important that they get it right. Turns out, they often do.

I'm a little angrier than usual nowadays. Again, my apologies. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — creativesoul

This wasn't directed at me, but I can relate. You're not alone. The more important an issue is, the more emotional control (especially anger) we have to exercise so that our logic and ability to listen/learn isn't obstructed.

But as you saw, Bernie is very close with Biden in national polls and fairs well in battleground states as well. So it is a little riskier, but not by much. — Xtrix

The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. If he wins the 3 biggest (Florida, Pennsylvania, and Michigan), he will win the election. He won those 3 in 2016. This makes me more nervous than does the coronavirus. Despite the low probability I will die if I get it, I'm taking the recommended precautions (social distancing, hand-washing, etc). Analogously, I'm taking precautions against Trump's being reelected.

The differences between Bernie and Biden are numerically small in the battleground states, but in my mind, the significance is magnified by the context: Trump can win each one of those states. — Relativist

Of course. So you'll take the 1%. That's fine...I just don't happen to agree with it. I think Bernie's policies are so much better for the country, particularly on climate change, that it's worth taking that minor risk.

:up:

Wealth de-concentrates during depressions. We haven't had one in a while, so I'd easily believe we're at a peak. — frank

Does it manifest as symptom or as a cure?

And what happens when the depression ends?

I'm willing to be educated here, but it's not easy to draw analogies to historical events (things can go both ways...).

It seems like you're saying wealth aggregates until shit hits the fan and the distribution becomes untenable (maybe its called a depression).

Are you with me on the subject of wealth redistribution then? I've been arguing for UBI for years...

You know that you can also do this? — BitconnectCarlos

What necessities should I sacrifice in order to roll dice on wall-street?

What are the least essential vitamins I wonder...

This is questionable. Traditional financial wisdom advises against timing the market, and instead riding out the storm. Of course in this case we may just need to make an exception (personally, I have sold most of my holdings). In any case, over the past few decades fund managers have not generally speaking outperformed the S&P. — BitconnectCarlos

If there wasn't gain to be had on average, nobody would be investing whatsoever. Outperforming the S&P isn't required. If performance is in the black then wealth will concentrate merely because most people have no position to begin with.

Am I missing something? One kind of concentration I'm worried about in this case is the bargaining power that businesses (and therefore workers) themselves lose during the recession (those that become more dependent on investment capital to adapt and outlast competition). Meanwhile, private owned (small) businesses either find private investors (same issue happens there) or they run the risk of bankruptcy. As bankruptcy occurs, market-vacuums open which can only be quickly filled by global corporations with the infrastructure required to do so.

I'm looking at a broad recession/depression like a series of industry shakeouts. There is risk and opportunity, but there is more opportunity for those who are already well positioned, and much more risk for those who are not.

Paycheck to Paycheck with no health insurance in America is not well positioned...

I feel like we need to define "affected" here a little better. On one hand, the wealthy have lost more than the poor in dollar terms this past week by far. Generally speaking, it seems like people are getting knocked down a peg - so everyone becomes less wealthy. On the very bottom of the social ladder you have the homeless who probably aren't affected by this very much at all. But above them are the poor who are now in a serious situation and threatened with homelessness. The middle class now risk becoming poor in a recession and the wealthy may risk becoming middle class or less wealthy.

If the rich are trying to time the market then they have more to gain and also more to lose if they mistime it. I think if everything were to crash we'd all be more equal, relatively speaking. You would just have a ton of wealth destroyed and everyone would be poor. Even if a rich person did time the market well who would buy his products? — BitconnectCarlos

This is a good point. I think relativism holds true in this case.

Stealing a billion dollars from Jeff Bezos or mayor-what's-his-face is actually less of a crime than stealing 1000$ from a family that has less than 50k savings (which is the vast majority of them).

The closer someone is pushed toward the bottom, the exponentially worse their living conditions seem to get. Since basic nutrition is already on the concern-table for many American families, I'm confident that the breaking point isn't actually that far off. Maybe we'll just get away with some thousand dollar Trump checks; stretch-marks that remind us of a really shitty time. Or maybe global problems are about to stack themselves against us. What if there's another disastrous hurricane event this September? Or several? What if there's a problem with the flow of that sweet sweet black stuff (many states would love to pull some shit against the petro-dollar, and global crisis of any kind is an opportunity to do so).

...

The world really needs to start reassessing its "in this together-ness", because the rapidly changing future and future prospects of our society promises to filter us out of existence if we don't.

↪fishfry So Whoopi is secretly a fan of Trump — Benkei

I used that example to illustrate the fact that while it is no doubt highly unlikely that Hillary will be the eventual nominee; it is nevertheless not completely beyond the pale to so speculate. That was my only point.

Bernie would not accept. Trump has been part of the political corruption on both sides of it... the buyer and the seller of public policy. — creativesoul

I think he would. Of course Trump would never do it. It's just an idea. But I do think that if they did, that ticket would win 50 states. The US is on the verge of a populist revolution. If the establishment doesn't crush us first.

It's a perfectly respectable opinion all over the media, certainly not original with me.
— fishfry

Ugh. Come on. — Xtrix

I'd let this go but I'm really curious to understand your thinking.

I agree Hillary as the nominee is unlikely. But you think even mention of it is somehow beyond the pale. But I have seen much speculation along those lines from both the right and the left side of the commentariat for months. I just don't see why you think even mentioning the idea as a speculation is somehow wrong. I mean, Hillary's been all over the place in public the past few months, and when asked about her intentions she coyly says, "I never say never."

How do you figure that's not sufficient justification for raising the question?

Please try to answer this in complete logical sentences, not "Ugh . Come on," which is not helpful.

I'd let this go but I'm really curious to understand your thinking.

I agree Hillary as the nominee is unlikely. But you think even mention of it is somehow beyond the pale. But I have seen much speculation along those lines from both the right and the left side of the commentariat for months. I just don't see why you think even mentioning the idea as a speculation is somehow wrong. I mean, Hillary's been all over the place in public the past few months, and when asked about her intentions she coyly says, "I never say never."

How do you figure that's not sufficient justification for raising the question?

Please try to answer this in complete logical sentences, not "Ugh . Come on," which is not helpful. — fishfry

To quote a very stable genius: "I don't feel like talking about it on this thread."

But seriously: keep trying to save face, it's kind of hilarious. If you can't see how stupid your original comment was, despite multiple people explaining it to you, you're not willing to see it. Which I see is a typical pattern for you.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?

Wealth de-concentrates during depressions. We haven't had one in a while, so I'd easily believe we're at a peak.
— frank

Does it manifest as symptom or as a cure?

And what happens when the depression ends? — VagabondSpectre

One theory is that concentration of wealth eventually makes the banking system unstable. Banks have to lend money to survive, so when wealth is concentrated, they're lending to a poorer community. Poor lending practices become common. At the same time, the super wealthy create speculative bubbles.

I used to believe all that and accept that the only reason the US hasn't crashed yet is that its being artificially propped up by China, which is using it as a ladder to transformation. Maybe it's true. I'm not sure anymore.

It seems like you're saying wealth aggregates until shit hits the fan and the distribution becomes untenable (maybe its called a depression). — VagabondSpectre

Yes. I think that's what Marxists believe.

Are you with me on the subject of wealth redistribution then? I've been arguing for UBI for years... — VagabondSpectre

My question is: what difference does it make what you and I support? UBI would be a profound systemic change. I think it would only happen after an unrecoverable crash of the system we have. That's not something we can plan or vote for. I'm saying: look at it mechanistically, not morally (for a while anyway). See the extent to which you are a form emerging from this integrated organism. You're not off to the side watching it and assessing your contracts with it.

If performance is in the black then wealth will concentrate merely because most people have no position to begin with.

Actually according to Gallup 55% of Americans hold stock. But yes, stock gains tend to go towards those who have the most invested. Similarly, stock declines hit - in dollar amounts - those with the most invested.

There is risk and opportunity, but there is more opportunity for those who are already well positioned, and much more risk for those who are not.

Yes, and this is key. What does it mean to be well positioned? Ideally, looking at it now - it means a large cash reserve that can come buy the bottom (whether that's in stocks or real estate or maybe starting a business) and basically timing things perfect. However, there are wealthy people who have most of their assets in real estate (I'd say that this is the case for a lot of wealthy people) - like an airbnb tycoon - who despite having millions in assets are also in quite a bit of debt and possibly over-leveraged and with tourism and travel on the decline these tycoons are in trouble. It's not like they can instantly sell their holdings like a stock either because it's real estate and it's less liquid. Real estate can take months to sell. Those airbnb tycoons or landlords might also have employees who could get laid off. Ripple effects.

I do believe that there is opportunity here and in a perfect world the wealthy would be able to buy the bottom and everything just turns green there. It would be the best for the lower classes as well because it would probably lead to a hiring boom if the wealthy could time it just right but it takes a lot of guts to put your money on the line after, say, 4 months of carnage.

Paycheck to Paycheck with no health insurance in America is not well positioned...

Agreed.

The closer someone is pushed toward the bottom, the exponentially worse their living conditions seem to get. Since basic nutrition is already on the concern-table for many American families, I'm confident that the breaking point isn't actually that far off.

The question is how do we solve it. I'm not going to complain if they start sending us $1000 checks every month. The proposals on how much to send have reached as high as $4500/month. There's no real limit to how much the government can print. Hell, they could send us $10k/month if they wanted but what happens to the value of the US dollar? Short term alleviation comes at a cost longer cost. I'm having serious doubts about the US dollar right now.

Don't get me wrong - this crisis does scare me. I'm fortunate enough to not be at the bottom, but I'm certainly not at the top either. The thing is, the crisis is with Main Street, not Wall Street. I'm in favor of implementing policies which help the poor or those in need during this time, we just need to make sure those policies come with an acceptable trade-off. As of now I tentatively support UBI. And yes, those without savings or an emergency fund will be hit hard. I personally have lost a pretty significant amount of money but I'm not threatened with homelessness or paying for expenses.

The thing is, the crisis is with Main Street, not Wall Street. — BitconnectCarlos

:brow:

Obviously we have a stock market crisis on our hands, but the main reason is the virus and the day to day measures that we're taking to prevent it like not leaving our houses and economic activity coming to a halt. It's a bottom up issue rather than a top down one.

Obviously we have a stock market crisis on our hands, but the main reason is the virus and the day to day measures that we're taking to prevent it like not leaving our houses and economic activity coming to a halt. It's a bottom up issue rather than a top down one. — BitconnectCarlos

The fact that the stock market reacted to predictions tells you it's only loosely bottom up. The things we do to comfort the market are usually symbolic. See the 2009 crisis for details.

The things we do for Main St are real. Or more real.

How far can we stretch the social contract upholding this reality before it gets ripped apart?

It will have to be stretched until the pips squeak before anything will change. In theory political changes would be able to turn society away from raw capitalism, to some something more social democratic. But in some countries this is being held back by the manipulation of the media and the use of populism, funded by the wealthy, the people invested in capitalism. There are established, even endemic (as in the UK) anti socialist ideologies which are fostered by this manipulation.

But as I see it following the financial crisis of 2008, more and more people have lost faith in the free market and the politics of the privelidged is loosing support amongst the young. In the UK this is becoming an existential battle, almost civil war. With older wealthier people who benefitted from the economic boom of the 1980's and 90's. Against the younger people who have had debt and unaffordable house prices holding them hostage, having to rent with higher and higher rates of rental. Meaning they can't generate their own wealth, while the older people hold onto their wealth.

Perhaps Corona will help to correct this imbalance.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough? — Xtrix

Oh, political speculation is verboten? I didn't read that in the forum rules. I'll make a note of it.

So your money is on Joe Biden making it to the election in November? That's the betting favorite. I'd gladly take the other side were money at stake. He's an extremely weak candidate. If someone else gets the nomination one way or the other, it won't be one of the former candidates. It will be someone from the outside. She Who Must Not Be Indicted is certainly in that conversation if not necessarily in the lead. This is perfectly sensible political speculation. You seem to only know what you read in the papers, and you clearly don't read much.

Lots of stupid things are discussed somewhere in the media. The fact that they appear in the media doesn't make them any less stupid. Clear enough?
— Xtrix

Oh, political speculation is verboten? — fishfry

Stupidity isn't forbidden, no. Hence why you're still allowed to post things.

You seem to only know what you read in the papers, and you clearly don't read much. — fishfry

This from a guy who continues to defend a stupid, stupid statement out of embarrassment. Forgive me if I don't care.

Looks like the Republicans are trying their best, yet again, to screw the American people. What's the answer to this crisis, in their world? What the answer is to everything -- their ONE idea: TAX CUTS!

Specifically, tax cuts for corporations.

Even in a time of crisis, they don't even pretend to be anything other than corporate slaves. It's really repugnant.