After Gamestonk will hedge funds now threaten U.S. solvency itself?

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
2,978
324
88
Hot take: the results of crony capitalism are the same as unregulated capitalism, except it has cronies to throw under the bus when things go bad.
The government provides them their priviliged status so I doubt that. Unregulated capitalism would invalidate their entire business model: copy/patent rights, trade barriers, protectionism, tax breaks, subsidies and stimulant funds, corporate legislation to even entire monetary policy created in their favor. I'm not really against corporations since many things simply can't be created without massive scale and investment. It is more about the inherent corrupting influence that comes with unmitigated concentration of power. It is no surprise that crony capitalism exists where corporations and government meet.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
6,297
3,395
118
Unregulated capitalism
In a sense, "unregulated capitalism" is simply a contradiction in terms, because capitalism is dependent upon regulations to create a framework to operate in. Although that's to a certain extent what you are pointing out.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,113
1,623
118
Country
United States of America
The government provides them their priviliged status so I doubt that. Unregulated capitalism would invalidate their entire business model: copy/patent rights, trade barriers, protectionism, tax breaks, subsidies and stimulant funds, corporate legislation to even entire monetary policy created in their favor. I'm not really against corporations since many things simply can't be created without massive scale and investment. It is more about the inherent corrupting influence that comes with unmitigated concentration of power. It is no surprise that crony capitalism exists where corporations and government meet.
Without copy and patent rights, there would be a shift in priority toward items that can't be quite as easily reproduced, so many internet business models might collapse or require significant retooling, but so long as capital can maintain private armies (or 'security forces') it can also keep control of the more concrete sorts of production that sustain a society; food agriculture and other consumer goods, housing, and so on. But as for who stays in control? No particular reason to think it won't be largely the people with money now.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 12, 2020
3,345
1,114
118
Country
United States
In the magical world where salespeople and management don't count as work and the cost of materials is literally zero... You really have an affection for bad math, don't you?
Yes, they are definitely talking about the sign makers and sales people and this definitely isn't in the context of a factory owner, great reading comprehension
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,113
1,623
118
Country
United States of America
In the magical world where salespeople and management don't count as work and the cost of materials is literally zero... You really have an affection for bad math, don't you?
it's not 'bad math', you're just making up reasons to avoid a point you don't like. you're doing it by complicating a simple analysis, sure, but you're also not doing anything to contradict its central point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,135
436
88
Country
USA
it's not 'bad math', you're just making up reasons to avoid a point you don't like. you're doing it by complicating a simple analysis, sure, but you're also not doing anything to contradict its central point.
I'm not complicating a simple analysis. You're oversimplifying an analysis to reach a dumb conclusion.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,113
1,623
118
Country
United States of America
I'm not complicating a simple analysis. You're oversimplifying an analysis to reach a dumb conclusion.
No, dude. You haven't added anything meaningful to the observation that:

Revenue > Wages

Adding that you should consider

Wages + Other Costs

such that

Revenue > Wages + Other Costs

doesn't have any impact on the central claim. Yes, there were also other underpaid workers involved in making the various material inputs, Marxism destroyed :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

Cheetodust

Elite Member
Jun 2, 2020
459
574
98
Country
Ireland
In the magical world where salespeople and management don't count as work and the cost of materials is literally zero... You really have an affection for bad math, don't you?
If having the exact wrong take of a given situation were an Olympic sport... Actually you'd come dead last because of you're unwavering commitment to getting things wrong.

If you got a dollar for every weapons grade bad take you had you'd be broke from investing it all in Blockbuster.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,135
436
88
Country
USA
No, dude. You haven't added anything meaningful to the observation that:

Revenue > Wages

Adding that you should consider

Wages + Other Costs

such that

Revenue > Wages + Other Costs

doesn't have any impact on the central claim. Yes, there were also other underpaid workers involved in making the various material inputs, Marxism destroyed :rolleyes:
I don't think you fully understand how bad that example is. It's not just the analysis that's dumb and oversimplified. It's that the imaginary manager follows the bad logic through to the end. The answer to "how many does he make" is not ever "$10 worth". Is that costing, is that pricing, who is it worth that much to? I understand that's meant to be a fiction not representative of a real conversation, but it's truly "and then everyone on the bus clapped" levels of writing. It's the dumb person deciding they figured out the perfect comeback in the shower 6 hours later level of argument. It's like "man, if business people said exactly the stupid thing required to set-up my witty argument, then I'd really disprove capitalism." It's embarrassing.
 

Seanchaidh

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
3,113
1,623
118
Country
United States of America
I don't think you fully understand how bad that example is. It's not just the analysis that's dumb and oversimplified. It's that the imaginary manager follows the bad logic through to the end. The answer to "how many does he make" is not ever "$10 worth". Is that costing, is that pricing, who is it worth that much to? I understand that's meant to be a fiction not representative of a real conversation, but it's truly "and then everyone on the bus clapped" levels of writing. It's the dumb person deciding they figured out the perfect comeback in the shower 6 hours later level of argument. It's like "man, if business people said exactly the stupid thing required to set-up my witty argument, then I'd really disprove capitalism." It's embarrassing.
"Owners have found ways to be evasive about where their fortunes come from" is not the swell argument you seem to think it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix