the stock market is a scam.

submitted by SubliminalCriminal from self.finance

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

Honestly, we should nationalize the stock market, along with the banks and other financial institutions. Usury destroys a Nation.

[–]ImHereForFinance 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

We should make a stock market backed cryptocurrency allowing us to trade shares of the sp500 as cash. by turning the stock market into a component of currency it may be nationalized.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

The whole point of cryptocurrency is to commit crimes without the government or a central bank being able to stop you.

[–]ImHereForFinance 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I would say the purpose of a currency is to be a stable source of value and a means of exchange. Further most criminal transactions occur in cash.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Further most criminal transactions occur in cash

This is true in my experience, I have never purchased anything illegal with crypto. Although one advantage it would have is that if I were arrested for anything and I had more than a hundred bucks in cash, the cops just seize it civil forfeiture style. Cops love legally stealing cash.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

the purpose of a currency is to be a stable source of value

The last time I checked, rapid deflation isn't exactly the definition of stability.

most criminal transactions occur in cash.

Most transactions in cash are legal, meanwhile most transactions in cryptocurrency are criminal — or at the very least immoral. It's like saying New York has a worse crime problem than New Mexico just because it has a larger population, even though NM's crime rate is much higher.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Without new constitutional amendments and rewriting a number of laws, such nationalization can be dangerous.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Yes, but we could separate them from the government by giving each citizen one voting share — that way, corruption in Congress and the Presidency wouldn't effect it as much, and the profit would all be distributed as a dividend, rather then being funneled into government programs. Also, this would be done largely at the state-level, with the federal bank only having limited powers, such as printing money.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Citizens may have votes, but the state can destroy this business, and it tends to be more organized than the citizens. Still seems better than the current situation. You want to distribute the profit, but what about the debt?

The Roman Republic used to have two consuls.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

the state can destroy this business

Just vote for people who won't. We can't solve anything without voting the Democratic-Republican establishment out of office, and keeping them out.

You want to distribute the profit, but what about the debt?

This doesn't really relate to the public financial companies, but here's my idea:

  1. Pass a balanced budget amendment like every state except Vermont

  2. Cancel debt owed to Communist China and other hostile countries

  3. Lower interest rates on the debt

  4. Severely cut federal spending, and relegate it to its constitutional powers

  5. Raise tariffs and taxes on the wealthy

The Roman Republic used to have two consuls.

I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned this.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

We can't solve anything without voting the Democratic-Republican establishment out of office, and keeping them out.

You want one super party, like in Europe? There Is No War in Ba Sing Se, there are no political prisoners in Europe.

here's my idea

When increasing debt gets you elected, and reducing debt makes you unelectable, why would anyone bother balancing it?

Raise tariffs and taxes on the wealthy

To give the majority an ability to continuously increase the tax for the wealthy is an interesting idea. It may allow one to experience a communist life without a communist government.

I'm not entirely sure why you mentioned this.

Several top leaders with no power over each other is an interesting idea. Such situation should make both of them more competent than the current leadership. The downside is that they would be able to enact more changes.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

You want one super party, like in Europe?

This makes zero sense, especially in relation to what I said. I want to get rid of the two-party dictatorship, not make a new one.

When increasing debt gets you elected, and reducing debt makes you unelectable, why would anyone bother balancing it?

There's no proof either of those are actually true. Republicans whine about the deficit, but they never do anything about it.

To give the majority an ability to continuously increase the tax for the wealthy is an interesting idea.

It's called voting.

It may allow one to experience a communist life without a communist government.

Are you one of those people who think anything a step to the left of Ancapistan is Communism?

Several top leaders with no power over each other is an interesting idea. Such situation should make both of them more competent than the current leadership. The downside is that they would be able to enact more changes.

Just to immediately have those changes overruled by the other guy.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I want to get rid of the two-party dictatorship, not make a new one.

People want perfect leaders. Honest people can't be perfect. So, people will only vote for liars. Voting for liars often leads to disastrous results. Unless they have a system designed to hide their crimes. A party, no matter whether it's official or not. Electing a liar from a party will give voters more satisfaction than a regular liar, and they refuse to vote for honest people, so.

Republicans whine about the deficit, but they never do anything about it.

But doing less makes them elected, why abandon a strategy that works?

It's called voting.

When the minority, if they want to survive, must either hide or take over the government? Such a nice system.

Are you one of those people who think anything a step to the left of Ancapistan is Communism?

True Ancapistan lives in our hearts. It can't be found anywhere in the world. But when it's found, no tyrant can take it away.

Just to immediately have those changes overruled by the other guy.

You can give them control over different parts of the society. Even if not, a paper with 2 compromises sounds better than a paper with 1000s compromises.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

People want perfect leaders.

Not really. People just want honest leaders.

But doing less makes them elected, why abandon a strategy that works?

Most Republican voters don't even like the Republican Party. I think somewhere around sixty percent want to go third party, but they can't because the way the system is designed.

When the minority, if they want to survive, must either hide or take over the government?

Huh?

True Ancapistan lives in our hearts. It can't be found anywhere in the world. But when it's found, no tyrant can take it away.

lol

You can give them control over different parts of the society.

That would just be another branch of government, which is my plan: take some power away from the executive branch and form an examination branch.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

People just want honest leaders.

lol

I think somewhere around sixty percent want to go third party, but they can't because the way the system is designed.

If they abandon the 40% to create a new party, they will never win again. They would have to suffer under the ever growing totalitarianism forever, voiceless. With 3 parties, what prevents two of them from forging an alliance to permanently destroy the least likable party? It's either two-party or uniparty.

just be another branch of government

Your current branches have to work together for every decision, can't do anything separately. In a system with two independent leaders, they would be able to fully control their own sphere. This would allow for more specialization, thus more professionalism. It will make their domains smaller, thus easier to understand. Such system has both upsides and downsides.

an examination branch

The supreme court. But they don't control the army. Don't control the intelligence agencies. Сan't afford true impartiality.