General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo hell with the S&P index and its new high.
Excuse me if I'm not impressed by the new high for the S&P stock index. This is good news only for the owners of stocks, and only in the narrowest sense of financial self-interest, and only in the usual temporary way. (Peaks mean you'd best be selling.)
The present economic order tells the lie that all wealth trickles down from its success, although it destroys human beings and is destroying the ecological basis for human and other life.
Anything that promotes the illusion that this system is in any way healthy is actually bad news. We should not succumb to the propaganda that presents the preferred financial indicators of capitalism as though they are more important than the GINI coefficient. How has that developed for the U.S.? For the world?
The indeces that should be relevant are the ones that tell us about student debt, the amount spent on education compared to warmaking, the real well-being of the vast majority. Tell us about the median wage! Tell us about the rate of imprisonment. Those say something about how the people are doing.
The majority of stocks are owned by the rich. (No matter how you spin the fact that about half the people have a couple of shares out of millions of shares in this or that.) So the S&P is mainly a measure of how much money is going to the rich motherfuckers who think they're entitled to own the world. Since they own the media, you hear about the S&P and the DJIA, and not the Human Development Index.
A billionaire is by definition a gangster, a warlord, a monopolist, a beneficiary of mass murder. A rise in the number of this class is a negative indicator.
What about pollution? Are CO2 emissions down?
Are there fewer bombs? How many wars are being waged? How many bases does this empire maintain? Are there fewer dead children in the rubble, killed by bombs made by U.S. corporations?
How many prisoners still at Guantanamo? How many missiles flew?
How much money is going into the MIC and "Top Secret America"? How many crimes are committed on behalf of this state?
The next financial crash and open manifestation of economic crisis are the inevitable products of this irrational system. For this reason, I will welcome them, conditionally: Because they're going to happen no matter what. People will suffer, but not because I think capitalism is a perpetual crisis machine. People will suffer because the history and the economic dynamics of the system that measures its health in the S&P index guarantee it. Crisis at least brings the opportunity to reform or finally end this system.
In short, and with all due respect: Fuck the S&P, the Dow Jones, Wall Street and the 0.1% who own the controlling interest in the banks, the holding companies, the multi-death corporations, the "philanthropic" foundations, the FIRE sector. Fuck capitalism.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leftstreet
(36,108 posts)...or some other such nonsense, cheering a healthy 'robust' Wall Street like so much fortified breakfast cereal for the masses!
DURec
Fuck Capitalism
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)do end up homeless, in this system, and some of them suffer such delusions.
Even worse, however, is that other, high-functioning mentally ill people end up running the system. The most "successful" of these sociopaths are held up as role models for the young.
RKP5637
(67,109 posts)Capitalism handsomely rewards the best of the sociopaths, the touted CEO that can make the tough decisions, fuck over and destroy millions of people without blinking an eye, feels no empathy, no weakness (a model sociopath). Those that profit handsomely in death machines, the list is endless. Capitalism usually brings out the worst in people.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I think this indicator is important. Not to you or I, but to the overall strength of our economy. I do not buy into trickle down and am not making that argument. What I am saying is after an extended period of strong growth with the S&P things become a little bit easier for the middle class. Very large institutions start acting with more confidence instead of out of fear. Money becomes more available for startups and for existing small business to make payroll etc.. I know it isn't always the way it is but there is a pattern of that throughout our history. Even though it is a false sense of security for some, the sense alone makes an overall difference.
How can I hold that view and still agree completely with your op? Well, our economy is similar to the way it has always been. No one in power in this country is brave enough to try to change the fundamentals of our economy. With the players in the executive and legislative branches embracing the current model of capitalism we use we will continue these shitty cycles and they will just hope that the status quo will leave them on a high note as they are up for reelection. It is very important to them. It gives them the ability to sell a false vision to the American people. While the vision is false, the perception of what they are selling is real and believed by many. Perception alone can build confidence. Until we have a group of leaders courageous enough to fight for fundamental transformation of our economy this index does matter, whether real or not.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)However, what either of us thinks isn't going to change how the S&P goes.
And due to the inherent, inescapable dynamics of capitalism, it will go up up up and then down down down and then up up up again. The same minority will extract most of the gains in both directions, and the same majority will find themselves fucked over on the downside. It's time for people to stop forgetting the last crisis, and pretending the next one came totally by surprise.
Let's stop talking about the weather and start changing the climate.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)I agree with it 100%.
haele
(12,659 posts)An economy is an indicator of how resources are used and allocated. A ledger sheet is not an economy, as it doesn't show what the recourses availible, capabilities or opportunities are within the household, business, or even community.
The problem is that people tend to focus on the financial or maybe the production side as if it was an accounting sheet, and don't really look at the complete picture, including the opportunity costs - or the cost of not doing something instead of doing something.
I see the stock market (or any market in general) more as a reaction to policies and how certain resources are used within the economy. As an indicator, you need to know what is fueling the market - is it just money moving from one sector to another without anything tangible being produced, or is something that is tangible; produced goods that are actually being created and bought?
Too many of the markets are just playing with money and showing all sorts of great returns - when nothing is actually being done with that money. There is nothing tangible behind the numbers. It's just a bunch of people sitting around saying "well, I'll pay this for that" and marking it down on a ledger and then passing it off to the next person without actually taking possession of the "that", so by the time "that" becomes real, the actual value becomes whatever the last person to make a call on the price made before someone else actually takes it home. In the meantime, everyone who engaged in that virtual hot potato exercise realized a financial value on whatever is marked down on their individual ledger sheets. Without doing any real work, or requiring the value have any true reflection on the actual item that is sold.
Haele
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Yes, we're supposed to clap for the stock market like trained seals. I see it as a negative indicator in that more rich people will get rich but wages will not go up, leading to more income equality. No value will have been created. And likely more activity harmful to the environment will go on. It's a lose lose for anyone but the large shareholders.
progressoid
(49,991 posts)
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Thank you.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)compared to the crappy performance under Republicans like Bush, is a testament to the more responsible economic policies that Democratic presidents put into place. Yes, the rich benefit the most from improving stock prices but they benefit the most from an improving economy generally. And over 50% of middle class Americans own stocks.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Ever since the last guy who acted as if the president makes decisions was punished for it and replaced by a Hollywood B-movie actor who waved and smiled a lot, the money that determines who gets to run and win these "elections" has backed "Democratic" presidents to pump up the treasury and Republicans to deplete it.
The underlying cycles of capitalism, of bubble and burst, would have proceeded regardless. They are inherent in the system. (Please address this inescapable aspect, if you're going to reply. Go ahead and argue that it wouldn't happen if all presidents were Democrats, that should make for fun.)
Your statement is meaningless by the way: "Over 50% of middle class Americans own stocks."
Don't even bother to define that great rhetorical dodge, the "middle class." See instead if you can tell us:
How much does the median household by wealth or income have invested in stocks?
What proportion of stocks are owned by the top 10%, compared to everyone else?
More than half of the people do not own even a thousand dollars in stocks. It is true that a great many middle-income and middle-wealth Americans "own" stocks in that their only or main "retirement plan" is in the form of privately-managed funds that invest on their behalf, partly in equities.
In other words, in the absence of an adequate system to assure incomes for the old, worker-bees are given the offer of having some financial manager gamble with their retirement savings. This often works out, depending on the year of your retirement, so it's considered a successful system. As to those who lose in the gamble - tough shit, right?
It's probably more of a scam than the lottery - which is proven to produce dozens of millionaires a year.
Maven
(10,533 posts)conservaphobe
(1,284 posts)Not to impress those of us on the left.
And it works magically.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I can see that.
I can disagree with the implied acceptance of the value system. It's like talking points opposing wars because they are waged by incompetents, rather than opposing wars because they are wrong. It leaves the way open for never actually changing anything substantive about the system.
TBF
(32,062 posts)
valerief
(53,235 posts)It drives EVERYTHING.
And we fight their wars for them and wave flags.
taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Wealth inequality is an issue, but is it really the most important thing in the world - an issue that (you imply) drives all evil? If you're serious, maybe you should step back a bit and not care so much about other people's money.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)In this economy, it drives EVERYTHING, as valerief said. It is the main reason for all policies, it is why things are arranged as they are. Historically even social welfare states are just a concession to maintain social peace so that private parties can continue to own and rule. Since the 1970s, the ruling classes have discovered they can dismantle welfare states and prevail over the opposition.
& There is no such thing as "other people's money." Everything economic is connected. If someone is making billions from burning fossil fuels or manufacturing military systems or gentrifying your neighborhood and getting you evicted in the process, the problem is not that we're jealous of their money. It's that they are destroying our shared world.
valerief
(53,235 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)RKP5637
(67,109 posts)And they come back in pieces or dead.
valerief
(53,235 posts)No Vested Interest
(5,167 posts)and other IRAs.
Large state-operated pension systems are among the largest holders of stocks and mutual funds.
These pensioners are among what remains of the middle class, and many states are trying to downgrade or eliminate state pensions.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)While I frankly think we should go back to defined benefit plans as opposed to defined contribution plans, the truth is that a lot of people's retirement accounts are in 401Ks.
Bryant
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)As I'm underlining, my rejection of the S&P as an indicator of something good has no effect on whether it goes up or down. I get that people suffer when it falls (when GDP declines), directly and indirectly. This is an inherent attribute of capitalism.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Every time it hits a new peak, you have the same total forgetting of the inevitable cycles and crises. The financial punditry and capitalist press pretend that this time is different!
Right now, as always, the smart money (i.e., the big money, for the most part, since its size moves the market) is planning for where they think the current bubble will peak, so that they can sell.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)taught_me_patience
(5,477 posts)Is the price of the S&P not a reflection of the economy? Do you deny that sales are getting better and people are being hired?
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The sovereignty of privately owned capital in combination with permanent growth economics is destroying the basis for human life on this planet. Denial doesn't change that. Why would you not want to seek an alternative? In any case, the demise of the present economic order is already underway -- as is the far more significant global extinction event that this economy has initiated.
Two-thirds of all species, the fisheries, the coral reefs, the remaining primary forests, the ice caps, most of the fresh water, the easily accessed fossil fuels, and in, the end most of the people - we're going to go, absent very radical worldwide changes. This is a function of this wonderful economy.
But apparently we should be happy with the extremely shortsighted perspective of which party gets the advantage in media-driven election cycles: Sales are growing or "getting better," in your term! For the moment, anyway. People are being hired! For shit jobs, mostly.
This is a function of the capitalist cycle. If you think it's good, you also accept the next, inevitable crisis. It's how the system works.
riseabove
(70 posts)with the current system.
And as far as resources, they're going to disappear regardless of the system... as humans need to consume resources... unless that his you want to go back to people digging holes to poop in, walk 5 miles to the nearest store since there will be no cars or buses, not be able to receive life saving treatments which require technology, which requires human consumption. If we don't consume we mind as well stay in the past, where people shared bath water to bathe in.
And if anyone is contributing to the worlds resources being consumed, you should look at people. THEY are the ones buying up all goods, big houses they don't need, cars every 4 years when cars can last 12, just because the want to look good in a new one.. that's not the system really, that's the people.
Or are you saying some entity or authoritative figure should be in charge of how much people should consume? Who'd be that figure? You think they wouldn't take advantage of the structure?
Sorry but it's people that are the ones gobbling everything, business maybe a conduit but they wouldn't be as big as they were if people weren't spending themselves to death.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The system's demise is inevitable but it can happen more or less quickly.
The real question is why some people want to keep it going.
Alternatives have been formulated and devised, and it's the defenders of the system who are blocking that. It's possible to completely revolutionize the energy and transport systems with a very short time historically. But the profit-driven investment and the capitalist political systems are choosing to stick with fossil fuels, corporate monoculture, the national security state, permanent-growth consumerism, etc. etc. And a bunch of rationalizations about how "people" are really to blame and business is just serving a market, like you have provided.
If you really want to avoid "digging a hole to poop in" and the other caricatures you present, then you should be among those calling for a revolution in the present systems of energy generation, transportation, agriculture and industry. Because after their collapse, that's where we'll be.
Who's buying new cars every 4 years and ever-bigger houses? Certainly not the majority of Americans. Certainly not the people making the median incomes. Maybe the problem here is you're not seeing the real class divides in this society.
Laelth
(32,017 posts)-Laelth
raouldukelives
(5,178 posts)Well, aside from it being the fault of capitalism. I think capitalism might be worth a shot really. It certainly isn't what we have. I'm not really sure what it is other than corporate socialism. With all the gains and resources given to the connected and wealthy and the losses left at the feet of the people. Anyone defending it certainly isn't defending capitalism. I think we could desperately use some kind of democratic capitalism which disallowed profiting from things the public at large agrees is a bad thing. I used to think we had something like that when I was a kid.
But, that was probably always a fairy tale. The one sure thing is that all every dollar in the markets is accomplishing is adding extra weight to the boot pressing on our necks. And really, I had kind of come to grips with that decades ago. I knew it was bad, and that it was causing suffering to others, but I felt like we would have time to fix it. That given time and good people and good works mother nature could reclaim what was built upon it.
Climate change changed all that. Now we know it is fact. That it isn't just killing us, it is killing the future, for everything.
It is the greatest moral and economic test we have faced since slavery. Is the suffering of others, the killing and torturing, worth the gain? Those who were disgusted with the idea of slavery didn't end it by investing in slaveowners or voting for them. They ended it by refusing to take part and instead trying to change it. Fighting and dying to change it. Those who stand with the climate deniers, with the corporations, are the same mindset of people back then who tried to justify the suffering of others as needed, how else could they provide an income? "It isn't my fault slavery exists! I'm just trying to feed my family. We need to work with the plantation to change it"
Everyone who stands with Wall St isn't standing with a sustainable or perhaps even survivable future for this planet and its inhabitants. They have made the choice, of free will, to be part of the boot.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)I like capitalism because it is literally correct.
Capitalism is the sovereignty of capital, as the word says: a capitalocracy. Owners or controllers of capital make the important decisions. Real-existing capitalism has never looked like the free market or libertarian versions of its ideology, because these ideologies have always been self-serving bullshit for the winners (and for many non-winners who want to have faith).
Competitive markets exist when a state regulates to make them so (the opposite of the mythology, in other words). When markets are "unregulated," big pools of capital form, push out competitors, and come to command the powers of the state on their own behalf. Even if an industry is inherently competitive (like agriculture, say) capital is fungible and so large capitals will act to homogenize conditions across all industries.
Capitalism has always been statist, a strong state is a precondition and demand. Except this "state" is defined as "security" and "rule of law," while any part of the state that might be democratic or work contrary to the interests of capital is "government" and therefore some shade of evil.
Well, except for all the corporatist-statist capitalists who don't mind about dropping the libertarian ideology. You know, the more usual "conservatives." They want business to rule and people to conform, and the police to enforce that conformity, and have no problem with any of it. In fact, most "libertarians" are basically the same. Famously hypocritical in that it's always about their property rights, not your rights to justice or freedom or to have a say in what happens in your life.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)It is simply an institution that takes the wealth created by the working class and redistributes it to a tiny cabal of wealthy financiers.