User Controls
Stonks falling again
-
2024-07-25 at 12:27 PM UTC
-
2024-07-25 at 12:32 PM UTCstanks
-
2024-07-25 at 12:34 PM UTCThis feels like 2007 to me for real now. There was a big drop about 2 years ago, but then there was a massive debt-fuelled bubble. This feels more like the start of a genuine bad economy. And no, for you whingers, the economy right now isn't bad - this is actually as good as it gets.
-
2024-07-25 at 12:45 PM UTC2008 was never really resolved; they just kept ramping up quantitative easing (see: printing more money, increasing money supply) to push the problem into the future.
that working even as a stopgap (as far as I know, no real future solution was ever planned) relies on US and western control of the world financial system, its ability to resell its debts and control money flows by maintaining the sole reserve currency, and it's currently under siege on all fronts.
in short the world was kept in compliance by US/European-centred financialism, the petrodollar, and the US Navy controlling all of the major trade routes. as a result much of the west's economies were switched from production to financialism because j'ewish market sorcery is much easier than manufacturing, and it's going to be a very rude awakening when the rest of the world is no longer forced to participate in that captive market.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 12:58 PM UTCThe solution to 2008 was what we have now, mass immigration, lower standards of living, and transitioning to an economy where the underclass are basically encouraged to borrow and rent instead of save and own. We never really got serious about living within our means or sustainably. The idea of juicing the economy with long-cons was just too tempting.
When interest rates are low enough, as they used to be in the US and still are in Japan and Europe, you can encourage a form of capitalism where people continually borrow money to buy assets, then work those assets to the bone in order to repay the debt, which can be rolled-over for a very long long period of time.
The plan actually was that interest rates would stay low everywhere forever, and asset prices would continue to increase forever, and immigration would increase forever. Inflation fucked that up. It's not just that grocery prices increase, the real problem is due to the way the accounting long term debt works when either inflation or interest rates go high the banks who are sitting on government and corporate bonds start accruing massive paper losses.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 12:59 PM UTCI lost my shirt during the last crypto crash and am only barely starting to recover now
I had my money spread across crypto and tech stocks and IT ALL WENT DOWN lol i'm never investing again. The one time in my life I actually made consistent income and invested every penny AND IT WENT DOWN yes of course who the fuck buys FAANG I should have stuck to general motors and ice cream or something
Peter lynch was right
-
2024-07-25 at 2:51 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas in short the world was kept in compliance by US/European-centred financialism, the petrodollar, and the US Navy controlling all of the major trade routes.
How does US Navy control major trade routes?
The US navy has transitioned away from patrolling vessels such as destroyers in favor of nation-killers (aircraft carriers).
Originally posted by ner vegas 2008 was never really resolved; they just kept ramping up quantitative easing (see: printing more money, increasing money supply) to push the problem into the future.
Partially in order for politicans to secure re-election? -
2024-07-25 at 3:08 PM UTCdude i can't wait to see how lit the next global conflict is, just imagine the aircraft carriers just deploying shitloads of sorties one after another after another and just leveling another countries major cities
I"ll probably die righgt away because of Miami's undesirable location on the tip of the dick but idk maybe america won't get hit. We got lucky the first two times, no reason why god wouldn't bless us again -
2024-07-25 at 3:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes How does US Navy control major trade routes?
The US navy has transitioned away from patrolling vessels such as destroyers in favor of nation-killers (aircraft carriers).
it's not so much about the composition of the fleet, it's more about the capability to protect exiting trade routes and deter competition - the threat is more important than the actual force for keeping the current system stable. it's why the US has such a huge problem with the Chinese Belt and Road programs; it offers an alternative for trade corridors that they cannot control. it's why they keep naval bases near almost all of the key shipping chokepoints you were talking about the other day.
Originally posted by Kingoftoes Partially in order for politicans to secure re-election?
maybe, but it was more because all of the key banking institutions at the time were involved. the 2008 crisis was mostly about big banks being able to offer mortgages to people who should have never qualified because they were able to launder the risk through insurance, reinsurance and investment schemes, so they eventually foreclosed and ended up holding massive amounts of real estate that were now worth nothing.
the problem could've been solved by allowing the banks to fail and the market to correct, but it would've destabilised the financial system so they had to find a way to bail them out.
the US DOJ famously refused to prosecute HSBC for massive corruption and working directly with the Mexan cartels for fear of what it'd do to international finance; HSBC's problems were way smaller and they're not even a US bank.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 3:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Donald Trump When interest rates are low enough, as they used to be in the US and still are in Japan and Europe, you can encourage a form of capitalism where people continually borrow money to buy assets, then work those assets to the bone in order to repay the debt, which can be rolled-over for a very long long period of time.
This is assuming that a large enough portion of the population in a given nation is made up of Entrepreneurs, only a few of which will be competent at all in the long-term, and even fewer will generate enough profit to expand their business beyond a single metropolitan/geographic area/region.
People do buy a lot of assets right now, I'm viewing this web page on one right now. A problem with that is that many consumers either do not have enough knowledge to make investments that are profitable long-term, or invest in assets that are almost guaranteed to depreciate (cars, clothing, electronics, even luxury brands of all 3 of these types of goods depreciate often).
This is an anecdote, but out of every person I've talked to that is my age about investing (I'll say 20 people as a lowball), only 4 or 5 of them knew what I was talking about when I said I have a Roth IRA or money in Index Funds, and only 1 or 2 of these people also had money invested into assets, whether shares in a business or commodities.The solution to 2008 was what we have now, mass immigration, lower standards of living, and transitioning to an economy where the underclass are basically encouraged to borrow and rent instead of save and own.
Lower standards of living? How far back do we have to go? Pre-internet? That hurts businesses big time, especially some of the biggest businesses in the US (Amazon, Google, Apple). Do you mean a decrease in consumerism?
Mass immigration doesn't always make a difference and can theoretically be detrimental in the short run if you have an influx of unskilled laborers flooding to a nation like the US (hypothetical example) that is increasingly nudging it's way towards becoming an "information economy" and where a large portion of unskilled jobs are no longer in manufacturing. Instead they are in the service sector. Which is great, but you can't exactly export a lot of services, but you sure as hell can export manufactured goods. I'm no Mercantilist, but I like the idea (and results) of not running a trade deficit and working exports/imports to the most profitable outcome as far as international comparative advantage is concerned.
Good thing mass immigration will kill nationalism though. -
2024-07-25 at 3:11 PM UTC
Originally posted by Bradley dude i can't wait to see how lit the next global conflict is, just imagine the aircraft carriers just deploying shitloads of sorties one after another after another and just leveling another countries major cities
I"ll probably die righgt away because of Miami's undesirable location on the tip of the dick but idk maybe america won't get hit. We got lucky the first two times, no reason why god wouldn't bless us again
next global conflict you're going to see aircraft carriers get deleted before they have a chance to leave portThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 3:13 PM UTCI can't wait to hide my aircraft carrier
IN YOUR ASStralian ports. -
2024-07-25 at 3:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas it's not so much about the composition of the fleet, it's more about the capability to protect exiting trade routes and deter competition - the threat is more important than the actual force for keeping the current system stable. it's why the US has such a huge problem with the Chinese Belt and Road programs; it offers an alternative for trade corridors that they cannot control. it's why they keep naval bases near almost all of the key shipping chokepoints you were talking about the other day.
So to put it shortly it is more about soft power than hard power, a lack of viable options to US protected trade routes, and the looming threat of making Uncle Sam mad if you oppose him?The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 3:19 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas next global conflict you're going to see aircraft carriers get deleted before they have a chance to leave port
ICBM's flying around the globe like birds during migration season.
Electrical Infrastructure being shut down by foreign adversaries en masse.
Biological warfare.
Total war.
Strangling sanctions.
This is WW3! -
2024-07-25 at 3:22 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes This is assuming that a large enough portion of the population in a given nation is made up of Entrepreneurs, only a few of which will be competent at all in the long-term, and even fewer will generate enough profit to expand their business beyond a single metropolitan/geographic area/region.
he's talking more about rentier-capitalism where rent-seeking behaviour overrides productivity. instead of building things, existing powers take control of key assets and charge rent to use them.
the general population is kept in a state where they're effectively priced out of ownership so that those powers can profit off of the loans and rent on the things the average person needs or wants. -
2024-07-25 at 3:33 PM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas he's talking more about rentier-capitalism where rent-seeking behaviour overrides productivity. instead of building things, existing powers take control of key assets and charge rent to use them.
the general population is kept in a state where they're effectively priced out of ownership so that those powers can profit off of the loans and rent on the things the average person needs or wants.
Doesn't that mean rentier capitalism inherently involves Monopolization/Oligarchization of large portions of the economy?
I'm all for natural monopolies such as railroads, where one firm is the only firm that is able to operate in a market efficiently. I'm not for "unnatural" monopolies though where there either where there are artificially inflated barriers to entry.
Also doesn't rentier capitalism lead to debt bubbles?
-
2024-07-25 at 3:38 PM UTCyes, it's a very bad thing for an economy and worse for a people, but it's the way things are going.
I'm sure he can tell you himself but he wasn't defending it, just stating that using unchecked immigration to drive down (real) wages and force people into that system is a way for the banks to extract the value required to recoup their losses from that whole debacle and the inflation that followedThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2024-07-25 at 4:30 PM UTC
-
2024-07-25 at 4:32 PM UTC
-
2024-07-25 at 5:25 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes This is assuming that a large enough portion of the population in a given nation is made up of Entrepreneurs, only a few of which will be competent at all in the long-term, and even fewer will generate enough profit to expand their business beyond a single metropolitan/geographic area/region.
Landlords and franchisees tend to be smaller businesspeople who have an advantage over big corporate outfits due to the level of careful micromanagement involved. Big corporations are inherently inefficient and only exist where the technostructure is required - eg. heavy industry, financial services, high tech platforms.People do buy a lot of assets right now, I'm viewing this web page on one right now. A problem with that is that many consumers either do not have enough knowledge to make investments that are profitable long-term, or invest in assets that are almost guaranteed to depreciate (cars, clothing, electronics, even luxury brands of all 3 of these types of goods depreciate often).
When I said asset I meant to say long term income generating assets.This is an anecdote, but out of every person I've talked to that is my age about investing (I'll say 20 people as a lowball), only 4 or 5 of them knew what I was talking about when I said I have a Roth IRA or money in Index Funds, and only 1 or 2 of these people also had money invested into assets, whether shares in a business or commodities.
Most people don't even have the good sense to stay out of debt or live within their means.Lower standards of living? How far back do we have to go? Pre-internet? That hurts businesses big time, especially some of the biggest businesses in the US (Amazon, Google, Apple). Do you mean a decrease in consumerism?
It's not linear. Like right now housing is expensive and energy is super-cheap, but that wasn't always the case. And technology and medical science advances, and culture changes, but we're not about to go back to any period of time on those thing. I mean just generally people trying to live with less money. Stuff being more expensive, wages being lower, people you meet on the street being a little shittier and ruder and more insane with each passing year.Mass immigration doesn't always make a difference and can theoretically be detrimental in the short run if you have an influx of unskilled laborers flooding to a nation like the US (hypothetical example) that is increasingly nudging it's way towards becoming an "information economy" and where a large portion of unskilled jobs are no longer in manufacturing. Instead they are in the service sector. Which is great, but you can't exactly export a lot of services, but you sure as hell can export manufactured goods. I'm no Mercantilist, but I like the idea (and results) of not running a trade deficit and working exports/imports to the most profitable outcome as far as international comparative advantage is concerned.
Mass immigration is bad for native workers who compete against the immigrants, but if you need tomatoes picked it's a good thing.Good thing mass immigration will kill nationalism though.
Yeah, cos brown people countries like Brazil aren't chauvinistic and nationalistic or anything. Even look at America, you have Mexicans, Indians and Blacks going around like turbo-patriots. Dumbass flag worship is going no where, unfortunately.
