Live data from Hacker News

Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

chrbutler.com

1–10 of 23 posts

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#2
Well said. To be able to bet all the money I've ever made on something stupid and it then when it fails nothing actually happens. Wealth needs to be attached to responsibility and scale as such. It should be a huge liability to even have 1 billion dollars.

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#3
So let me get this straight:

Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!"

Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#4
post #3

So let me get this straight: Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!" Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

You joke buts not like those are exclusive at all.

For example, pump and dump schemes have both an up part and a down part. Not hard to understand things can be manipulated in either direction to benefit a specific group.

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#5
post #3

So let me get this straight: Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!" Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

Well both can be true, money is only made (or lost) on market swings. It is precisely the rich who can capitalize on such swings

Whereas for regular people, an upswing means nothing, whereas a downswing means job loss, mortgage rate hikes, etc.

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#7
post #3

So let me get this straight: Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!" Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

You'll find anti-capitalists are anti-capitalists whether the number is red or green.

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#8
post #3

So let me get this straight: Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!" Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

The whole point of the article is that yes, both of those are true, and that they are self reinforcing. The crashes consolidate the wealth, the booms increase its power and grow a new crop to harvest. Repeat.

Re: Modern wealth is a parlour game played by the well fed

#9
post #4
post #3

So let me get this straight: Market goes down: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because the rich can buy stuff on the cheap!" Market goes up: "grr... this is just a dastardly ploy to further wealth inequality because stocks are overwhelmingly held by the rich!"

You joke buts not like those are exclusive at all. For example, pump and dump schemes have both an up part and a down part. Not hard to understand things can be manipulated in either direction to benefit a specific group.

>For example, pump and dump schemes have both an up part and a down part. Not hard to understand things can be manipulated in either direction to benefit a specific group.

The pump and dump analogy doesn't really work because the crash associated with the "dump" isn't something that the organizer wants, nor do they benefit from the crash. It's just an unfortunate side effect from them cashing out and the truth catching up to them. Meanwhile the OP argues the opposite, claiming that companies knowingly made bad loans to create a crash, which implies more nefarious behavior than the standard explanation of bubbles caused by irrational exuberance. The latter is a conjecture that's not supported by any empirical evidence or even anecdotes.

Post reply on HN