Skip to main content

View Diary: The Stock Market is Not Crazy and the Republicans are Toast (210 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There's nothing inherently wrong with owning stock (11+ / 0-)

    Nor is it a privilege of the 1%.

    Sure, they own vastly more amounts of it than I do, and they reap far more benefits than I do.

    But I found the other diary to be incredibly disingenuous to suggest owning stock, or investing for that matter, is somehow amoral.

    I repeatedly claimed that Obama would never propose cuts to social security. I was wrong. Then again, I also claimed, repeatedly, that Rick Perry would win the 2012 Election, and that The Supreme Court would overturn Health Care Reform.

    by NoFortunateSon on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:19:22 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  No there isn't (10+ / 0-)

      But that has nothing to do with either of these diaries.

      In fact, the main problem with stock is that people who don't own vast quantities are always the ones who get screwed. Always. That's what made the 1929 crash so brutal, that tons of regular people had invested in stocks. Ditto with the 2008 crash. No one here has every claimed that owning stocks is immoral.

      If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

      by AoT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 05:33:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  really? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Aquarius40, artmartin

        when the market has crashed badly it tends to hurt the ones the most heavily invested in it and often that's those that have more money.

        The crash of 1929 hurt everyone but the rich lost entire fortunes and means of income which rebounded further down etc etc

        And I think this diary has a lot on topic, the fact is that investing in stocks can and is still a very viable means of saving and earning.

        In the time that I have been given,
        I am what I am

        by duhban on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 07:40:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Some of the rich "lose their fortune" (7+ / 0-)

          But generally speaking it is the smaller investers who lose more comparatively. The richhave people tohedge their bets and get bailed out. The poor and the middle class do not. Can you name anyone who was filthy rich before 2008 and is homeless now? Or even just can't make ends meet? That simply isn't how it works.

          I didn't realize you bought into the myth this much. I know we disagree a lot, but the idea that the rich are seriously punished during downturns is laughable.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:02:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  you are confusing a lot of things (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            artmartin

            and buying into your preconcpetions and biases against me

            Look at the data, many of those with large stock portfilos took a serious beating in 2008, yes most of them (if not all) not only survived it but are back to where they are but to suggest as you do that simply because you have more money you are somehow immune to economic downturn is wrong.

            Look at 1929 when stockbrockers, bankers, doctors and lawyers were just as much in the bread lines as joe the brick layer.

            I'm not going that there's inequality but the stock market can and will hurt people regardless of how much money they currently have.

            And I certainly reject the other diary having had time to read it.

            In the time that I have been given,
            I am what I am

            by duhban on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:21:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Bought on margin (3+ / 0-)

              In 1929 you could put down 10% of a stock's price to own the whole stock.  This was fine as long as the market went up, but as soon as your stock dropped below the original purchase price, the brokerage would issue a margin call.  If you didn't have the cash to cover the call, the broker would sell the stock at a loss and you would be on the hook for the difference.

              Banks and brokerages were riding the gravy train as well.  A Wall Street cabal that included Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan tried buying stock to shore up prices and stop the panic selling.  It worked for a short while but even they didn't have enough.

              Don't look back, something may be gaining on you. - L. "Satchel" Paige

              by arlene on Wed May 01, 2013 at 05:19:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  It's not about you (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Free Jazz at High Noon
              and buying into your preconcpetions and biases against me
              The narcissism; it burns.

              The "extreme wing" of the Democratic Party is the wing that is hell-bent on protecting the banks and credit card companies. ~ Kos

              by ozsea1 on Wed May 01, 2013 at 06:48:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Ummm...I don't know duhban (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Aquarius40, duhban

                And I'm no psychologist, so I won't comment on whether he or she is narcissistic.

                What I can state with a fair amount of confidence is when someone writes this about a person:

                I didn't realize you bought into the myth this much. I know we disagree a lot, but the idea that the rich are seriously punished during downturns is laughable.
                And said person responds with:
                 you are confusing a lot of things...and buying into your preconcpetions (sic) and biases against me
                ...then that response is not narcissistic. It was in response to a direct comment to that individual and about that individual.

                So your comment that:

                It's not about you
                ...is clearly false. The statement was about her/him, and a personal response was appropriate.

                If something's burning you, you might want to look elsewhere. It's not your mistaken allegation of narcissism regarding duhban's response.

              •  as already pointed out (0+ / 0-)

                there is no narcissism here, AoT decided to make this personal not me

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Wed May 01, 2013 at 01:28:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  Got a picture of any of Jay Gould's kids selling (0+ / 0-)

              apples? The safety net and market regulations put in place after 1929 have protected even the worst Wall St plungers from ruin. Andrew Mellon and other mega wealthy of his era weren't touched by crash. Was even one super rich family that made its fortune post Civil War wiped out by the depression? Is the former ceo of Lehman Bros managing a McDonalds? Any AIG poobahs living in a shelter?

              My Aunt's 401k was trashed. Retired people who were average earners cannot recover form market downturns. If 60% of Americans, or more, still had defined benefit pensions as they did when St Ronnie was elected, the 2008 crash would have spared our retirees at least. Under this individual 401k system they are just meat on the table for our financial elites.

              •  in the long term (0+ / 0-)

                I would suspect that even your Aunt's stock portfolio  will recover. The honest question of course is when and how.

                The actual advantage the more wealthy have in the stock market (if they are smart about it) is that they can be incredibly diverse which is why they recover so fast.

                As I told AoT I'm not saying the system is perfect or that the market doesn't need to be regulated but to say that everyone wasn't effected in 2008 is just factually wrong.

                What we really need to be addressing is the utter stagnation of wages since the 60s and 70s

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Wed May 01, 2013 at 01:32:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Aunt's 401k isn't going to recover in time to (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  duhban

                  smooth out her retirement. She was already in her 80s the 2nd time her account took a hit and retired and not earning the 1st time. If our financial overlords had left her defined benefit pension alone she'd be doing a lot better. And it is pretty piss poor president'en for Obama to make her have to stress over her SS and Medicare.

                  Ceo pay is up 1,000% since 1950 so I think I know where we can find some of those stagnated pay packets. The jobs were put on boats so they could be anywhere.

            •  Doctors and Lawyers are not the rich I meant (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              duhban

              Certainly a lot of upper middle class people take a big hit. It's not just the poor and the workers, but it isn't old money that take a hit. That's all I meant. So I think we're actually pretty close on this one.

              If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

              by AoT on Thu May 02, 2013 at 08:41:43 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  well I would say (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                AoT

                the more diversified you are the less you are subject to the stock market (because if you are smart you invest in other places as well) so of course the more 'established' you are the less disruption you suffer.

                And yes I think we are pretty close on this one just had to talk it though

                You have a good day

                In the time that I have been given,
                I am what I am

                by duhban on Thu May 02, 2013 at 03:29:56 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  except the nuveau riche (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, JesseCW, ozsea1

          They get thoroughly fucked in these situations.

          If debt were a moral issue then, lacking morals, corporations could never be in debt.

          by AoT on Tue Apr 30, 2013 at 08:05:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site