On Friday, January 29, 2021 at 1:51:24 PM UTC-10, wrote:
> On Thursday, January 28, 2021 at 9:59:00 AM UTC-6, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> > On 1/28/2021 8:26 AM, John Kuthe wrote:
> > > https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/28/b...ck-market.html
> > >
> > > Everyone is after quick bucks! ;-)
> > >
> > > John Kuthe, RN, BSN...
> > >
> > Yep, some people will make tons of money, others will lose a bunch.
> And a bunch of little folks who could only afford to risk a few hundred or a thousand
> could double or quintuple their money in a couple of weeks. My son is in for a grand,
> and he's hoping to sell for 5-6K. That's a lot better than the ~20-80% profits he makes
> on his land business deals.
>
> The short sellers are getting bailed out, and are not being pitied by folks on the Right
> or the Left, and the sentiments of most reasonable center-Left and center-Right folks
> tend to support the right of the little guys to get into the game for what they can get
> out of it. This is a correction in the way that Capitalism is being practiced. What
> amuses me is that the libertarian folks seem to relish the chaos, and want to see
> less regulation, and the "reasonable center-Left and center-Right folks," while they
> might see this as *what's good for the goose*, will likely be more supportive of more
> safeguards.
>
> IMO, the big mistake after the Great Recession was the way that Wall Street was
> forgiven by the leadership of both Parties, and allowed to continue their risky
> behaviors. In Iceland, the crooks were treated like crooks. The way to stabilize the
> finance industry is clear, and that's through the tax code, treating capital gains on
> equities held for only a short time in the same way as income earned for actual
> work (wages/salaries). A tiny % surtax on trades would also make sense, as would
> a significant increase in the cap on income subject to Social Security contributions.
>
> It's not a choice between stagnant socialism and predatory capitalism. It's about
> reasonable balance, reasonable equity, and maintaning both physical infrastructure
> and the fulfilment of entitlements. They're called entitlements for a reason.
> Financial promises are financial promises, whether they are from the government, or
> a private entity.
>
> We should have a social safety net, *and* robust profit incentives. The two are not
> mutually exclusive. Ideological extremism is dangerous, and I contend that it is
> likely to get a foothold only when there is discontent over economic inequity, which
> breeds nutty populism.
>
> --Bryan

Oddly enough, the Trumpeteres are totally unaware of the mortgage/housing crisis as well as the recession that followed. This narrative of things never happening allows them to see der fuhrer as leading America out of the economic darkness. What this means is that the US has a serious problem with facing reality. What this means is we're doomed as a nation.

Good luck with your son's scheme. It's a pretty risky one - or is it? My guess is that most of those gamer nerds are going to lose their fat, oversized. shorts. OTOH, a lot of them don't give a rip about that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmxox3oqRZo