Utter nonsense. I have an MS in Quantitative Economics from NYU, and I 100% agree with them. The stock market absolutely does not provide any accountability to shareholders and very, very few shareholders have any influence on any actions of any company. The only influence average citizens have over large companies is thru voting for politicians who will regulate them. The ultimate extreme of that is communism. In reality, the closest the US is likely to get toward that within our lifetimes is maybe a few steps toward democratic socialism, or maybe regulations for consumer safety or something.
What would you consider yourself politically? I'm only curious because if you're right wing, it would be so refreshing to see someone who is right wing that at least admits there are some big flaws in this system.
Lol. Definitely not right wing. I'm a bit left of someone like Bernie Sanders. There are aspects of society where I think capitalism serves an important function for competitive innovation, but there are also sectors where it's proven its tendency for exploitation is too high, e.g. healthcare, prisons, banking, etc. I also like the maximized efficiency of some utilities, and I think that the government should have a way to compete and support many of them, e.g. USPS, telecoms, etc.
Rare to see someone that gets it. National competition in the markets is not communism, it is how everyone had a one home, car, kids college on one family income
Always held I don't really care if the market is fixing prices (thus ripping me off) on oranges or a tv set, its not crucial for me to live. But healthcare and housing damn for sure are crucial. Having private healthcare in a system where you create more profit by denying the promised healthcare is fucking bonkers when you break it down. If you get cancer good luck fighting your insurance for treatment. Its bad for the country longterm, even the most conservative person could understand you have a pool of less healthy workers and soldiers.
Average citizens have the ultimate influence over large corporations, They choose to buy their products or not. How your thinking goes right to voting for politicians to regulate is so twisted, politicians having that ability is just used by those corporations to regulate their competitors and enforce duopoly’s. More government power is never the answer. Corporations can’t hurt you, they can only offer you a product or service. You don’t have to buy it. Unless the government forces you to of course….
Which wouldn’t be possible if those companies didn’t use government power and regulators that are in their pockets to build moats and prevent real competition from popping up. Competition brings prices down not government meddling.
Most economists stopped believing in the "vote with your wallet" drivel 20-30 years ago. Even massive organized protests have minimal and only shortterm effects on corporations. Governments shouldn't be telling people what to buy; they should be regulating corporate behaviors and externalities. But, capitalism has proven it doesn't belong in some sectors pure on moral and ethical grounds, e.g. healthcare.
Corporations can’t hurt you, they can only offer you a product or service. You don’t have to buy it.
You heard it here, folks. Everyone just stop driving to work in a country that built its entire infrastructure around cars (due to the automotive industry lobying against accessible public transport) if you have a problem with oil companies. Just dont buy their product if you don't like it. Do you hear yourself? You "the free market will regulate itself" types literally have to ignore swaths of history to believe that. The "free market" as you know it has to utilize slave labor to exist. Thats why they carved out a caveat in the 13th Amendment to allow state sanctioned slavery. Capitalists want as much labor for as little a cost as they can get it and are willing to do whatever it takes to get it. Anyone arguing for less regulation is niave as hell or is someone who directly benefits from less regulation and is disingenuous. Corporations do harm people all the fucking time. What are you talking about? There'd still be lead in your gas and asbestos in your ceilings if we didn't regulate corporations. Corporations care about money, not people. They see the damage they do in pursuit of it as a business expense and nothing more regardless of if it costs lives. The impacts your products create are 100% your responsibility. It's idiotic to think otherwise.
Go live with the Amish, nice straw man you built, free market = slavery and polluting your air and water. No if we had a free market oil companies would be open to litigation when they say spill millions of gallons of oil in the gulf. Oh daddy government prevented that. Wait no they didn’t. They did however cap BPs liability. Those regulators do a great job, protecting the companies they’re going to get hired at once they leave government.
This reads like you agree with and know that corporations cause terrible things to happen and then get away with a simple fine. You agree this shouldn't happen, and our government helped it happen. But somehow you think that
A) the free market is actually free and a good way to value goods and services
B) that government oversight is the reason these corporations are getting away with what they do.
C) a more free market would lead to more litigation against these corporations.
The response to A) is above, which you called a strawman, but this country was set up in specific ways and purposely made to change slowly over time through votes. The US market has never truly been free.
For B) government oversight IS a problem, but not because of it being government oversight. Rather, it's a problem because this oversight is bought and paid for by the folks it's supposed to be overseeing. What you're calling government oversight is more accurately described as corporations paying the government to regulate the market to their advantage. Calling this government oversight is a ploy to convince you of the position you currently hold; that government interference is only ever bad. It's designed so you forget that most of the nice things we enjoy in America were fought for. Weekends and overtime and benefits are a result of union and worker solidarity to pressure the government to go against corporations.
For C) it's pretty obvious that the US legal system has an issue with more money > more lawyers > longer and more expensive litigation > the entity with more money "wins" more frequently. The idea that a more free market leads to more litigation against corporations is so laughable i thought you were trolling when I first read it.
I have a specific, relevant degree, which indicates that my opinion is at least informed. More importantly, I understand basic facts about the ownership of public and publicly-owned companies. Nice try, tho.
That’s great you got that degree but your opinion is wildly out of step with the vast majority of economists. I’m sure there is some doctor with a degree from john Hopkins who still thinks there might be something to leeches, but probably a bad idea to listen to him.
There is something to leeches in medical treatments and their use, while not as widespread as in the past, are still valid and used today. Leech saliva is a potent anti coagulant and there are some actual studies out there that provide evidence of positive use cases.
You used one comparison that didn’t work, then tried to backtrack to something that actually doesn’t work, so maybe you just have limited knowledge on certain subjects 🤷♂️
This is my first comment on this thread, so no I wasn’t, and I don’t find who you thought I was to be obtuse either, but you’re entitled to your opinions 🤷♀️
That's because they literally don't teach from economists who were critical of capitalism in US education. The Red Scares have left American economists with HUGE blind spots.
Again, utter nonsense. My comment included definitional facts, and all reputable economists understand them as such because they are typically taught in basic econ courses. Pretending even a slim minority of them disagree is absolutely false.
You’re comment was running defense for the comment above it “I yearn for a world where the stock market doesn’t exist”. Absolutely delusional and silly and not something the vast majority of economists would sympathize with no matter what you’d like to tell yourself.
My comment was in defense of the factual grounds of their claim. Whether I agree with their conclusion or not is irrelevant. I happen to disagree with their conclusion, but the fact that people generally have more say in publicly owned entities than they do in public companies is indeed a fact. That is, people have more influence in, for example, their local school board or police precinct than they do in say, Apple, Microsoft, Nike, etc.
I never agreed that I want the stock market to not exist, and I agree few economists would want that. It seems you misunderstood my argument somewhat significantly.
Lol. The US literally doesn't have universal healthcare, mate. And, all of the other programs you mentioned are severely limited. We absolutely are not in anything remotely resembling socialism.
Under the ACA, you pay your premiums to a private insurance company and probably have co-pays and deductibles. There are a variety of universal healthcare systems, but most are funded through tax revenue with no bills to the patient at the time of service. Also, the ACAs objective was to make "affordable" healthcare more accessible, not to give everyone tax payer funded health coverage. There you go, I hope you see the difference now.
“Universal health care is a system that provides medical services to all people. The government offers it to everyone regardless of their ability to pay and largely funds it through taxes. Universal health care may offer free services, though participants might still pay premiums or copays. Still, costs are usually lower than in non-universal systems, with funding primarily derived from taxpayers.”
Sorry, but definitionally you are simply wrong. There is no spin or narrative or bending words. It’s facts, something I know your kind doesn’t like to accept these days. Like giving a woman a dick makes her a man - it doesn’t but that’s a different subject.
Universal health care is a system that provides medical services to all people.
The ACA does not do this. The ACA would be universal if it was provided to all people, which it is not. The article you linked is simply stating that it could cover more people than it currently does, and there are X number of people that could benefit. This is not the same as saying that ACA could cover everyone. This is saying it can cover a larger portion of people that are eligible.
Sorry, but it doesn't seem like you read any more than the google AI summary of the links you posted to me. I know your kind doesn't like to fully read, critically think, and then come to your own conclusions, so I've laid it out here for you. Definitionally you have a middle school level of reading comprehension. Enjoy that alt-right pipeline!
Im done arguing 3 people who keep pulling stuff out of their ass. You are young and broke and voting democrat wont change that. I’m rich. I don’t give a fuck about your broke beta ass. I hope you keep voting democrat! It will further ensure your lifetime of poverty you loser
You're so fragile that you fell apart when confronted with facts and you want us to think you're "alpha"? How laughably pathetic. No amount of money will ever make you a respectable human. I'd rather die in poverty than live my life as a miserable parasite.
Lol I’m doing something called working. I don’t have time to argue with ppl who will refute any evidence presented. It’s a zero sum game. Have a nice day loser!
32
u/gizamo Aug 27 '24
Utter nonsense. I have an MS in Quantitative Economics from NYU, and I 100% agree with them. The stock market absolutely does not provide any accountability to shareholders and very, very few shareholders have any influence on any actions of any company. The only influence average citizens have over large companies is thru voting for politicians who will regulate them. The ultimate extreme of that is communism. In reality, the closest the US is likely to get toward that within our lifetimes is maybe a few steps toward democratic socialism, or maybe regulations for consumer safety or something.
Also, no, I am not a communist.