Can someone explain why, in the land where the free market is supposed to reign supreme, it has become commonplace to socialize corporate losses while privatizing corporate profits?
>>58786412The gains and losses are public. It’s just a choice of language or words you use. You can buy shares and take part of those gains. Also your 401k you take part of those gains.Also Only a few companies were bailed out. And toxic or troubled assets were purchased by the government or the federal reserve which is designed to litterally be the buyer of last resort since its inception
>>58786466>You can buy shares and take part of those gainsTheoretical availability doesn’t make the profits a public good. The profits are shared among private shareholders. I dont live in burgerland but I’m heavily invested in my countries version of JPMorgan. I get to collect 7% divvies every year and if the bank ever comes close to blowing up, I know that a boatload of free tax money will arrive to prop up my investment. Zero risk, only rewards
>>58786412>free marketCorporations are free to hire lobbyists and they are free to bribe politicians to pass favorable laws and deregulate. Also nearly half of the country doesn't exercise their right to vote, implicitly handing their freedom to oligarchical control.
>>58786466>designed to litterally be the buyer of last resort since its inceptionWhich incentivizes risky and reckless behavior in industries where bailouts are common. In 2008 the politicians knew and publicly stated that by bailing out the irresponsible banks, they were rewarding very bad behavior. But they felt like they didnt have a choice, because the option was worse. How is this a good system, where too-big-to-fail banks have unlimited access to the public coffers to cover their losses? The banks will find loopholes in regulations related to risk management like they’ve repeatedly done for a very long time, and push risk far beyond what they should in order to maximize profits, because they know for a fact that they will be saved by the taxpayers when they push a little too far and start bleeding money
>>58786611Any burgers want to chime in on how you’d fix this in 8 years or less if you were president? Is it even possible to reverse course at this point? Surely the capital owners at the very top understands that there’s only so far you can push the peasants before they begin to push back. Through most of history, even in the most corrupt nations, rulers and aristocrats would frequently give back to the community by using a large portion of their wealth on public projects that benefited the peasants to keep them from sperging out about the wealth inequality. If they became too rich and ignored the peasants, sperg-outs on a massive scale always ensued. The only one who has done that so far was Elon Musk spending $44 billion, knowing fully well that he would probably lose a lot of money, to protect and secure freedom of speech in the ‘public square’ of the internet. Being granted a voice and not being censored for having the wrong beliefs obviously made the peasants happy. But the rest of them seem to be living in a bubble where they keep amassing more and more mega mansions and mega yachts while pretending the peasants don’t exist
>>58786716>how you’d fix thisImplement ranked choice voting. There's no other way to effectively elect moderate candidates that represent a true majority and give unity to a nation. The two party system is doomed to push both sides to extremism.
>>58786716And while this might sound like something a commie would say, I am far from it. But extreme wealth inequality makes a perfect recruitment tool for the commies who know how to take advantage of angry peasants. I do hope the mega rich come to their senses before the leftist extremists becomes a serious threat
>>58786755Most EU countries have ranked choice voting and many are still beginning to lean into extremism on both the left and right, because they feel that voting for moderates who uphold the status quo where the peasants are being slowly fleeced is even worse. So the solution to diffuse the situation would have to address the root cause
>>58786466>The gains and losses are public. It’s just a choice of language or words you use.>You can buy shares and take part of those gainsJust because you could buy an apartment in the building where I live if you wanted to, doesn’t mean you have ownership of the building or the right to live in it. Even if the MBS for every apartment is probably on the central banks balance sheet. Shares in a corporation are no different. Private property.
>>58786412>>58780964
