Go, Economy!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bojack

I feel the stock market should be HEAVILY regulated and only open to institutional or other approved/accredited people because of the problems it causes.

---

This is already the case, since you can't really buy stock without going through a licensed broker.

Quote:

---

If a company wants to whore itself out for some quick cash they can do that. Some one shouldn't be able to buy on margin or issue stock options to CEO's or a variety of other bullshit concepts that have arisen from the market.

---

CEOs aren't the only people who get equity awards of various types. As usual, you're hitting the middle class in your quest to punish the rich. I cannot, however, defend buying on the margin. There may be something I am missing completely, but it's usually associated with selling short, and hoping/betting on companies (to) fail doesn't seem healthy to me.

Generally I am in favor of more open capital markets. I don't have problems with selling short or margin buying. I think the industry needs to be better regulated though, and this includes prison time for lawbreakers. The SEC is toothless and everyone knows it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

As usual, you're hitting the middle class in your quest to punish the rich.

---

At what point do you feel this is not the case? Like, if there is something where 98% of the benefits go to rich people, with 2% to the middle class, would you still say this?

If 98% of the beneficiaries are rich and only 2% of the middle class, then it's a non-issue. However, if the benefits go 98% to the rich and 2% to the middle class, that 2% could still be very significant, since we're potentially talking a larger % of income.

But I don't think people who generally fall in the "eat the rich" camp even understand that the things they target aren't exclusive to the rich.

Any regulation of stock markets only affects rich and upper middle class people. I don't buy the argument that Americans living paycheck to paycheck have lots of disposable income to invest with. It's a talking point that gets parroted around endlessly.

Define "upper middle class," so I can tell you you're full of shit. You don't necessarily need disposable income to invest. People get equity awards from their companies as well that supplement their salaries and may be very important to middle class people.

The issue is that the 98% of money that goes to the rich then ends up going to the hands of lobbyists, who work to make sure that 99% of the money goes to the rich.

That's the real problem. It's not so much that the rich have a lot of money - that's why they are called rich and not poor. It's that changes in statute since the early 1980s have helped create a system where the rich can build wall off their wealth and tilt the system even more in their favor.

That's why income inequality is so bad today. We basically have the economic structure of a corrupt third world tinpot dictatorship. This is a bad thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Diff-chan

The issue is that the 98% of money that goes to the rich then ends up going to the hands of lobbyists, who work to make sure that 99% of the money goes to the rich.

That's the real problem. It's not so much that the rich have a lot of money - that's why they are called rich and not poor. It's that changes in statute since the early 1980s have helped create a system where the rich can build wall off their wealth and tilt the system even more in their favor.

That's why income inequality is so bad today. We basically have the economic structure of a corrupt third world tinpot dictatorship. This is a bad thing.

---

I understand that point. But I always bring up the counterexample, because we need to find ways to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Define "upper middle class," so I can tell you you're full of shit. You don't necessarily need disposable income to invest. People get equity awards from their companies as well that supplement their salaries and may be very important to middle class people.

---

We've been over this before. The number of non rich people who own non-401k investments is almost nothing.

I can't recall if you finally were able to provide evidence of that. If it's 5%, isn't that similar to the number of people on welfare? If that number is insignificant, great, let's cut welfare entirely by the same logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

I can't recall if you finally were able to provide evidence of that. If it's 5%, isn't that similar to the number of people on welfare? If that number is insignificant, great, let's cut welfare entirely by the same logic.

---

Let's keep arguing refuted points because your brain feels like they make sense instead!