this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
135 points (97.2% liked)

News

23301 readers
4608 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 12 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MushuChupacabra@lemmy.world 32 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely none of society's problems can be solved through power and wealth concentration.

In the metaphor of an economic system being a living thing, money is blood. Blood circulates, and keeps the organism alive. Blood pooling in one spot and not circulating well can be fatal.

[–] SparrowRanjitScaur@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I think the shortness of human lives fosters short term thinking. If people lived long enough to deal with the long term consequences of their actions I think the world would be a very different place.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

When hasn't this been the case?

[–] zcd@lemmy.ca 8 points 10 months ago

We should unrich them

[–] recapitated@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

The non-owning classes need a different tool for tracking debts than the fiat currency we're used to.

If there is a way to cooperatively track value created by working within your neighborhood, say fixing a neighbors deck, delivering food, etc, outside of macroeconomic trade, we could figure out how to live without the hoarding pigs.

The difficult part is accountability. Commodities and fiat currencies are what they are, but trying to implement some other fungible measure of value created before the representation of that value already exists is what has me scratching my head. If there are 100 people capable of doing work within their community but only $10 to go around them, it doesn't make sense to exchange work for money that doesn't exist. But if those 100 people can agree to compensate one another by exchanging work without using the currency, they would all be unblocked and industrious.

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 4 points 10 months ago

There were lots of economies that worked this way. One recent example was the Irish Bankers Strike. Most of the banks in Ireland closed because they wanted concessions. The banks gave up on their strike because the overall economy wasn't affected much because people just paid with what cash they had, and if they needed credit they'd go visit their local pub where the owner would vouch for them.

There's more examples in David Graeber's book "Debt: The First 5,000 Years." Early economies didn't have money, but they still made it work.

[–] Uranium3006@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

you're better off ditching the strict accounting and foraging durable social relations instead. I recomend reading Bolo'Bolo

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So Trump's declaration of wanting the stock market to crash is a coded phrase to make the rich lose? Trump wants to suck the rich dry!

[–] chuckleslord@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

M->C->M

When the stock market crashes, those with the lion's share of money in the system will take their money out and convert it into other capital. Maintaining their competitive edge over markets that are actively growing value.

Meanwhile C->M->C

Those who have stocks in order to afford bills when they retire will take the brunt of the blow, since they can't freely remove their capital from the stock market due to legal restrictions on how their money can flow through the system. The ones who will lose the most are those who are currently retired and have no choice but to eat the losses without any recompense.

[–] yo_scottie_oh@lemmy.ml 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I wonder what might cause the trend to turn in one direction or another. For example, if 8% of equities are owned by one group while the other 92% are owned by another, then I suppose I’d expect both “shares” to grow proportionally to one another. In other words, if the market as a whole gains 50%, then I’d expect the ratio of shares owned by each group to remain stable… the only thing I can think of that might explain the difference in outcomes is perhaps a difference in portfolio composition, which could reflect a gap in investment preferences, or perhaps some opportunities are available to one group while excluding the other. Seems likely to be a mix of the two.

[–] ChocoboRocket@lemmy.world 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Hasn't that always been the case? People with the most wealth always own the most assets.

Aside from when they sell at the top before economic downturns anyhow

[–] nicetriangle@kbin.social 9 points 10 months ago

By record share they mean that there has not been a time prior to now in which they've owned a percentage as high as they currently do.

The graph in the article makes that pretty easy to understand.