unfreeradical @ unfreeradical @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

138

Joined

2 yr. ago

More than emphasizing the figure of Reagan, I suggest learning about neoliberalism overall, and its emergence as the global order.

Frankly, Reagan was just a simpleton in a suit, by my estimation.

Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman are the more relevant figures historically.

The systemic issue of "lesser evil" is a direct result of first past the post voting.

No, it is not.

It is a consequence directly of the ideal of representation.

I think the meaning of a paycheck is that your employer has decided it would benefit from your existence for at least a few more weeks, and therefore is willing to allow you to continue existing at least as long.

The meaning of your objections is difficult to understand, but it seems clear that you are not understanding the broader discussion.

Instead, it feels as you are spinning in narrow loops, trying to find problems with certain ideas, yet not realizing that such ideas are outside the scope of your loops.

Hopefully I can help, at least a bit.

Yes, I agree with this, but plz realize that this is not solely dependent on stocks as people can, and do, amass wealth through other means. But it is definitely a big part of the problem.

No one has argued that eliminating stock trading is sufficient to address the problems in current systems, but surely at least as much is necessary, and the stock market is plainly a sensible target for antagonism, noticing that in it the most wealthy and powerful of society hold their wealth, and from it, derive their power.

Sometimes yes… and sometimes no!!!

All wealth gained in the stock market is profit gained by the work of others.

Again, people CAN amass wealth without taking advantage of workers

Depending on interpretation, the statement either is false on its merits, or too simplistic to be meaningful.

Property, and therefore wealth, is a social relationship, that is, occuring within social systems, whose structure transcends the choices of any participant.

Since no one endeavors to be deprived of wealth relative to another, everyone who has wealth relative to others has such position due to the surrounding social system having conferred structural disadvantages to others.

Therefore, being wealthy is nothing if not taking advantage of others and their disadvantages.

Any system, including the stock market, that confers vast advantages to some, is a rotten system.

??? Where do you think the definition of stocks and the rules governing their trade exists? It absolutely IS particular laws that are the problem.

My claim is not that trading stocks is not predicated on a set of governing rules. My claim is that every set of rules supporting the trade of stocks is broadly objectionable.

In other words, I object to your characterization that a single formulation of stock trading is problematic more than the practice at large.

As I’ve said in other comments, you could get rid of stocks and replace them with some other set of rules for defining ownership, and guess what? If those totally new rules allow some people to a differentmass billions of dollars of wealth

Yes. Replacing a bad system with a slightly different system as bad or worse than the current is obviously not a thoughtful way address the current problems.

Perhaps try thinking harder.

feel free to continue focusing on a symptom rather than on the problem

I think you are extrapolatng, and not interpreting my response in context.

It seems that what you mean is social democracy broadly fails to meet the needs of the working class because it binds our fate to the exercise of ruling power.

Unfortunately, since apolitical money is not meaningful as a concept, any viable solution to ineffectual political processes must entail repairing if not reconstituting such processes within the political frame.

Democrats/Labour came into power, first thing was to undo all the shit and abolish neoliberalism, right? Right?

Right! If Reagan and Thatcher made neoliberalism law, then Clinton and Blair made it doctrine.

Yeah, they fucked society up in their unique and terrible ways, but they are absolutely not the cause of our problems, just another symptom.

It may be simplistic to focus blame on some individual antagonist, but the one named is probably the one whose choices carried the greatest weight toward achieving the current condition of disaster.

At any rate, as a champion of individual responsibility, he would happily accept, no doubt, his own.

The working class is not defined in terms of historical dates.

The working class is everyone who lacks sufficient income to survive solely from owned assets such as businesses or rented properties.

Obviously, ability to purchase stocks is limited by wealth and income remaining after meeting other expenses.

Sorry, but the working class exists, and cannot own as much stock as it pleases.

A constructive response to the question would be of providing an actual percentage, as was asked, rather than returning an absurd deflection.

Which statement have I made that is a "lie"?

The value increased because people suspect sales would be made of products so the value increased with ZERO input from the workers.

No prediction is absolute, and neither is any investment.

However, suppose inputs may be purchased at market for prices that are broadly stable, suppose a process is available for workers to create the products from such inputs, suppose the process is not in conflict with natural and legal constraints on the labor market, suppose the total wages required to pay to workers for each product is known, to reasonable precision, and suppose a consumer demand is also known, to reasonable precision.

Then, the prediction for profitability of investment is one related to general investment, not one based on speculation.

More, the prediction may be accurate only because the labor market exists, because workers will be available to provide labor.

If workers were not available, then no one would invest in production, obviously.

Sorry but it is entirely relevant as it demonstrates the inaccuracy if your claim that labor is the only source of value.\

You have consistently misconstrued my claim.

I never asserted the value of an asset may never have a component that is speculative, only that an asset class cannot sustain a component of its value that is speculative unless it also has a component relating to intrinsic value.

Except in extreme cases, as noted, the reason assets have speculative value is because they also have intrinsic value.

Again, assets eventually crash if they have no intrinsic value, only speculative value. Such is the claim I have made, which you consistently misrepresent.

No. I just have not made any claims that are negated by the events related to trading Gamestop.

If I suspect APPL is going to gain value because… Chinese government workers can use Apple devices, then the gain in value will be based on the speculation… not related to anything the workers are currently doing…

The new sales would be of products whose creation occurs only through the labor of workers. Your are describing ordinary investment, not speculation.

Stocks kind of sort of sometimes represent real valuations but they never reflect the pure value of the labor alone.

The particular distinction is not relevant. Stocks gain value because of the labor of workers.

The labor of workers is the source of value, the single element without which stocks would never gain value. Speculation only occurs as secondary effect, a response to the intrinsic value generated by labor. If work stopped, if intrinsic value stopped growing, then speculation would also cease to have meaning.

An asset class inevitably crashes if traded speculatively but lacking any intrinsic value, as observed in Ponzi schemes.

Yes.

Have you heard of other publicly traded companies that are not Gamestop?

I am sorry, but your use of the one example to negate my position is sloppy and ridiculous.

I observed as follows:

Speculation has been a relatively insignificant factor overall in the trade of stocks compared to the effects of their intrinsic value.

Stocks carry and accrue value due to the work of others than those who hold them.

The following was your response:

That simply is not true. The value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline which is often not related to the productivity of the workers.

The notion that all value cones from labor is fundamentally incorrect.

It only confuses the matter further that you now offer as clarification, "I have never said the entire value is speculative".

I believe the observations I have given, more so than yours, are generally accurate.

The price of stocks is supported principally by the value generated by labor, with speculation necessarily only a secondary effect.

The belief that value will rise is generally an accurate belief, because growth occurs from the value generate by labor. Such growth is not related to speculation.

A particular stock cannot be meaningfully considered overvalued if its entire value is speculative.

Such is the contradiction.

Perhaps you are not understanding speculation, confusing it with any investment purchase, any purchase based on expectation of rising value.

You are not adding clarity.

Your understanding is misguided.

Terse messages are used not because the broader messages lack substantive justification, but rather because repetition helps them gain enough attention that more of society will feel motivated to investigate and to reflect.

Speculation depends on a belief that value will rise in the future, which depends on, except in a few extreme cases of investors being scammed, the recognition of other value not speculative.

Land speculators know that land has usefulness, for development, agriculture, or resources. Stock speculators know that stocks have value generated by work. Even if market value has some component that is speculative, always some component is due to intrinsic value.

Your assertion, that "value of publicly traded stocks is based upon the speculation that the value of the stock will rise or decline", is refuted by the contradictions it itself implies.

An asset class whose value is purely speculative necessarily will collapse eventually. Generally in such cases the speculative value is generated through hype created by a nefarious actor who originally created the asset. Such is the nature of Ponzi schemes.

Workers may hold stocks, but anyone who holds a sufficient value of stocks is by virtue of such holdings not a worker. Therefore, stocks support the stratification of society into workers, who may hold stocks but remain workers, and owners, whose ownership of stocks is sufficient that they are not workers.