MrRodgers
Posts: 10542
Joined: 7/30/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
quote:
ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
OK, nitpicky dude -- I know that, obviously, since it's common knowledge. The point is, that organized exchanges or no, there's a market for transferring partial ownership of companies (and debt and commodities, but leave them out since you want to play snippity). Nothing can make that go away. Even if you forbid people to sell their businesses, SOMEONE ends up with it, even when there aren't heirs. That value is going to attract people looking to squeeze out value from trading, either on the spot or in some sort of futures arrangement.
It's not a question of "necessary" -- it's there, and will be unless you no longer allow public ownership of capital assets.
Now, you can set up systems to help regulate it . . . or you can leave it to the wild west.
But as long as people want to hold equity in businesses, there's a market exchange.
Eliminate Wall St. if you like, but that will only move the party.
You go on the defensive...why ? First debt and commodities are apple and oranges thrown in with stocks. They are irrelevant to the over all issue. You added them in, I didn't.
Second, if wall street had been broken up, maybe we wouldn't have had the meltdown with its fraudulent shit-paper, maybe we would.
That the capitalist and his govt. overseers are corrupt doesn't mean we need to 'suffer' a wall street and the first path to honest markets is...getting rid of the virtual monopoly of the NYSE. I know, the corruption is lore now, part of the American culture so.....?
Not on the defensive, silly person, just point out that adding in other financial instruments plays a similar tune, and to take them back out if you prefer. Doesn't change the point.
So, think it through your way. Wall St -- poof. What happens now -- rainbows and unicorns?
Or do people continue to trade in financial interests, simply in other ways, both more cumbersome and difficult to trace and regulate.
All you'd do is ensure capital is the province of the oligarchy -- a point you ignored in favor of nitpicking. Only those with the means to play with more difficult access would be the beneficiaries.
Or...we can have an orderly market and sensibly regulate it. Hmmmm....
Instead...friends of the oligarchy deregulated it, to the point it allowed good and bad loans to be bundled and traded without disclosing the fundamentals of the financial instrument. (see, debt markets really do matter). Electronic trading and massive positions from hedge funds -- these distortion hark back to the Gilded Age. Excessive leverage contributed to the 29 crash. Commodities speculation precipitated stock market troubles (to compete with the aggressive returns, and to cope with the crashed food market and it's effects on the global economy).
If we're going to buy and sell -- anything -- we have markets, and if we have a monetary system, there will be financial markets as a consequence.
You or I or anyone else can like or dislike it--doesn't matter. Simple reality.
Unless you put someone in charge of all assets, and since that isn't going to happen cooperatively (true communism), that would have to be strict socialism. And we've seen primarily failed systems where that's been tried...it's hard to allocate resources better than a well-regulated market.
Again the old refrain. What you say could happen, is happening and what I say could be done without wall street is being done. The fraud and shit paper is still there right now as we type and there is no regulation. The laws are there and not being enforced now like the reporting of sufficient reserve capital and what steps are being taken to prevent TARP II.
My idea would be at least partially remove depositors money from risk in the 6 banks that are larger than the failed 13 before 2008 and would be deposited locally and not on wall street. 401K's Keogh and Roth retirement accounts would remain local in banks or stock funds managed locally. Even IPO's could have their own market and stay the fuck off wall street as Google proved.
All of the regulation could be still be done...IF it is done at all. The trading would be localized and regulated and speculation would be minimized and present much less effect on commodity prices and maybe disappear altogether...two more good things.
The rest of your post is basically superfluous as to who is 'in charge' or market instruments (just more shit paper) or leveraging. All of that goes on now and would if anything, be reduced simply by reducing capital concentration.
Oh and once again and for all time, QE was never a threat to inflation, was never going to cause rates to sky rocket and was never...printing up money. It was simply the fed buying up shit paper to remove some smell from one side (negative) of bank's ledger and putting a few pennies on the dollar, on the other side (positive) of the ledger.
It was not more currency in circulation, it was not more consumer dollars chasing the same supply of consumer goods or was it anything that would threaten current markets and as exemplified by my first statement...the jury is in.
< Message edited by MrRodgers -- 6/20/2016 2:55:49 AM >
_____________________________
You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly but fuck one horse and you will be a horse fucker for all eternity. Catherine the Great
Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.
J K Galbraith
|
Wall street...[most is] unnecessary, I've said for 40 y... - 
Profile
cheered for Trump to be the next Prez? You can't cure stupid.. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread