Fed Should Pay Every American More, Let Hedge Funds and Billionaires 'Get Wiped Out', Says Social Capital CEO (marketwatch.com) 311
Is the Fed's massive coronavirus stimulus package helping the ultra-rich at the expense of ordinary American workers? That's what Chamath Palihapitiya, chief executive of venture-capital firm Social Capital LP, argued Thursday. From a story: Appearing Thursday on CNBC, Palihapitiya said the U.S. shouldn't be bailing out billionaires and hedge funds when it's the people on Main Street who are the ones actually getting hurt. Jobless claims hit nearly 17 million on Thursday, and are likely even higher as businesses across the country close in an effort to slow the spread of COVID-19. Economists say the unemployment rate has likely surged above 10% and will only get worse. Palihapitiya's argument, basically, is: Let those businesses fail, but without layoffs, and let the rich stakeholders absorb the pain.
When a business typically fails, Palihapitiya said, "it does not fire their employees," instead going though a bankruptcy process that often preserves pensions, and employees end up owning more of the company in the end. "The people who get wiped out are the speculators" who own debt, and the equity holders. "These are the people that purport to be the most sophisticated investors in the world. They deserve to get wiped out," Palihapitiya said. "But he employees don't get wiped out. The pensions typically don't get wiped out." A baffled Scott Wapner, the show's host, asked why anyone "deserves" to get wiped out. "Just to be clear on who we are talking about. We're talking about a hedge fund that serves a bunch of billionaire family offices. They don't get the summer in the Hamptons?" Palihapitiya said. "Who cares? Let them get wiped out. What we've done is disproportionately prop up poor-performing CEOs and boards, and you have to wash these people out," he said.
When a business typically fails, Palihapitiya said, "it does not fire their employees," instead going though a bankruptcy process that often preserves pensions, and employees end up owning more of the company in the end. "The people who get wiped out are the speculators" who own debt, and the equity holders. "These are the people that purport to be the most sophisticated investors in the world. They deserve to get wiped out," Palihapitiya said. "But he employees don't get wiped out. The pensions typically don't get wiped out." A baffled Scott Wapner, the show's host, asked why anyone "deserves" to get wiped out. "Just to be clear on who we are talking about. We're talking about a hedge fund that serves a bunch of billionaire family offices. They don't get the summer in the Hamptons?" Palihapitiya said. "Who cares? Let them get wiped out. What we've done is disproportionately prop up poor-performing CEOs and boards, and you have to wash these people out," he said.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The world isn't that simple. It isn't all billi (Score:5, Informative)
Not just that, this guy sounds like someone who has never been on the employee side of a bankruptcy. In the early 2000s, I worked at a startup telecom company which had (remember these?) severance clauses in the employee agreements. If I was let go for any reason other than being "fired for cause," the company owed me six months' salary.
Eventually the company's top investor (Goldman Sachs) decided its projections were too optimistic as the dot-com boom took hold, and my company laid off nearly all the employees and the next day then filed for bankruptcy. Because of the bankruptcy filing, all of the company's obligations prior to the filing were suspended of course. (After you file for Chapter 11, all of that money you owe for anything up to that point goes on hold until a judge determines the outcome of your case!)
I and lots of other ex-employees really needed that severance payment money to get us through a really rough time in the telecom business with few jobs to be found. But what did we all get? A settlement 18 months later that paid us out a little under 10% of our promised severance payments. I would have been better off with no severance payment if the company had survived two more paychecks.
Maybe my experience is atypical but I find it hard to believe that most employees are better off if their employer goes bankrupt than if the company is around to either a.) keep them employed or b.) at least be on the hook to pay for things like severance, COBRA and whatnot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was also puzzled at his insistence on pensions getting paid, etc.
I don't know of any companies that have "pensions" any more...that went the way of the dodo decades ago.
Pretty much every W2 employee's retirement package is a 401K....which of course, it market based.
Re:The world isn't that simple. It isn't all billi (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
all the old pensions were still stock market based, you just didn't realise as it was all wrapped up in opaque actuarial structures (with fees to match). Now its more open, your 401k is just the same thing but with slightly more transparent fees.
Pensions being paid could be 2 things - either for the ordinary worker for whom having their pension destroyed means a lot more government welfare and social problem, or for the millionaires who have stuck vast amounts in a pension as a very lucrative tax dodge.
Re: (Score:3)
Old school pensions were market based too. You think the teamsters just shoved all that money into a semi trailer and drove it around for 30 years?
No, they built half of old Las Vegas with it, by issuing loans to the casino owners to build the places, and the loans were paid back with interest, which grew the pension fund. There was still risk - if the place went belly-up and bankrupt, the pension fund didn't get the loan repaid.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I dunno where this guy gets off thinking that business don't lay people off in a bankruptcy. If it's any kind of retail or manufacturing presence, they shut down stores and cut back on staffing severely in those events while waiting to be bought out or waiting for liquidation. If nobody comes to save them, they shut it all down and it's over. Sears, Toys R Us and K-mart all come to mind.
The Line (Score:2)
Eventually the company's top investor (Goldman Sachs) decided its projections were too optimistic as the dot-com boom took hold, and my company laid off nearly all the employees and the next day then filed for bankruptcy. Because of the bankruptcy filing, all of the company's obligations prior to the filing were suspended of course.
That doesn't make sense. You don't get to file for bankruptcy if your profit projections are wrong. You can file for bankruptcy if your company runs out of capital and can't make enough gross profit to cover your expenses. If Goldman Sachs was playing games with accounting, the other stockholders would have sued the bejebus out of them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: The world isn't that simple. It isn't all bill (Score:5, Insightful)
No one's saying we should shut down Wall Street. What they're saying is just because you're on Wall Street doesn't qualify you for government welfare. If you're on Wall Street, you are REQUIRED to make sound financial decisions. If you can't do that, your company deserves to go to 0. You're a parasite on the economy. You provide no value. You are a drag on the economy. You are chaff to be discarded.
Re: (Score:3)
That's unfortunate, but if we keep bailing out failing companies to protect their investors, nobody has any incentive *not* to invest their retirment savings in risky investments. That leads to more investment in high risk ventures. Or downright stupid ones like the famous WeWork.
If your money is in the market, no matter in what form, you need to assume responsibility for that risk. And any form of forced investment needs to die.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you suggesting that the federal government should allow investors to only win and never lose? I'm glad to see there is such respect for "free markets".
When you invest in the stock market, do you not realize that there is a non-zero possibility that you will lose your investment? The rewards are supposed to be because of that risk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ding ding ding!
People have very, very poor understandings of what "the economy" is, what Wall Street does, and even the work of "a CEO". They just assume that rich people are playing poor people like puppets. It's not that simple.
If you work for a company that provides for ANY type of retirement (401k, 403(b), pension, etc.), that money is invested in the market one way or another so that you can get some sort of percentage multiplier on your contributions. Screw over those companies on a whim and you screw
Re: (Score:3)
Millions starved to death.
Irony, party of 1? (Score:3, Insightful)
He's worth $1.1 BILLION.
https://thewashingtonnote.com/... [thewashingtonnote.com]
So...is he advocating starting with him?
Re: Irony, party of 1? (Score:3)
Depends. Is his $1.1B invested in Wall Street speculation? Then, yeah, he's asking you to wipe himself out for the greater good. On the other hand, he's probably invested in many profitable ventures who don't rely on government handouts and preferential treatment in order to make their failed business models profitable for their friends.
Re:Irony, party of 1? (Score:4, Insightful)
Apparently yes.
Re: (Score:2)
More like: Bad at math, party of 1. With a $4.8T annual budget his $1B would be gone in hours at the rate the feds spend money. After the couple of months or so of going through all the rich people's money what will get spent?
Re: (Score:2)
except our annual budget isn't real money, it's debt on paper. the interest is the only real part.
If we ever get to a point where rich people aren't around to buy bonds to keep our debt going, then we collapse and that debt is meaningless anyways.
Pension? (Score:4, Interesting)
Pension? What the fuck is that? Not something my or my parents' generation knows of.
Re:Pension? (Score:4, Informative)
Those who elected to seek positions in the public sector still have access to pensions (at least in California).
Re: (Score:3)
Those who elected to seek positions in the public sector still have access to pensions (at least in California).
And those pensions have been gobbling up the state budget also. Public sector employees, when you factor in pensions, are the best paid overall. Especially police and fire who get to retire at 50. All on our dime. The only good thing about the whole arrangement is that you can opt out by moving out of state. Pity the fools who choose to stay as pension spending crowds out everything else. You can at least see the endgame by looking at Chicago and other places that made promises for votes but then didn
Re: (Score:2)
Right! I agree with him about not propping up shitty companies just because they're big and have lots of lobbyists but the government has forced everyone into a 401k and these will tank if there are lots of large company bankruptcies. Maybe the wealth tax is a better way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
Change country to one with a serious government.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Public markets - a tide that lifts all boats (Score:2)
Ummm... no. Before public markets, entrepreneurs would deliver a new product or better service, hire laborers, and let them do the work. Capitalism was alive and well for hundreds of years before public markets. And that was back when banks were allowed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People used to save money and banks paid interest. But with the Fed handing out free zeroes to the end of banks' balance sheets, your money gets worth less and less every day.
Things that can't grow forever eventually stop. Things that do grow forever are called cancerous for good reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That is oversimplfying. There are two important factors which people (conveniently) ignore:
- Inflation. If you sold your socks (or house, or company, or whatever IRS considers an investment) you need pay taxes on the entire "gains". However 50% of that might already be eaten by inflation.
- Corporate taxes. The basic formula is corporate tax + capital gains is roughly equals personal income tax. Something like 20% + 15% = 35% kind of thing.
And one more important thing:
- Losses. Income taxes are "unbounded",
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"However, if those who invested their money end up losing it all, they are highly unlikely to invest again"
Under this theory, investment would have already ended when bankruptcy provided for equity to be wiped out and creditors to become the new equity holders. This did not occur.
Re: (Score:2)
People will invest as long as they have money to invest. Cause it's better to have a chance of return instead of letting it rot. What they do is, they will be more careful what they invest in. And that is very much needed. RIght now, the markets are a stupid casino and not a financial market where money is invested to make products.
This person doesn't understand (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This person doesn't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Then the government can give those workers money. The point is that giving money to the airlines is stupid. Why prop them up when you could be giving money directly to people that need it. The investors and CEOs don't need it. Large-scale investment funds will see a temporary hit and then recover—the whole point to them is to be big enough and diversified enough to weather big shocks and still pay out to retirees.
If you're gonna play capitalism, play it all the way. Too big to fail is a lie, and events like these need to wipe some companies off the map so that the next crop of airlines doesn't take it for granted that there will be nothing to save money for. Instead of doing stock buybacks for investor profits they could've put some money aside, and now we're expected to bail them out? Fuck that. Give the bailout money to people out of work and put the airline up for sale. We'll see a better industry come out the other side.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You think those airplanes are just gonna sit on the ground? Someone will come along and buy them up at fire-sale prices and start an airline. If the demand is there, then a company will rise up to meet that demand.
But corporations run by idiots that do stock buy-backs absolutely do not deserve to survive. Even a temporarily nationalized airline is a better option by far. Then the government can spin it off into its own company and life will effectively go back to normal.
Stop bailing out known bad actors, or
Re: (Score:3)
Just because 4 huge american airlines fail doesn't mean that all the airlines serving America fail. There are plenty of airlines that will take up the slack.
You don't get to be a mega-capitalist right up until the moment it bites you in the ass. Pay your taxes, save up for a rainy day, and then maybe we'll talk. Dodge taxes every way known to accountant-kind and play games with the stock market, and you can reap what you sow. Let better run airlines take the market, AS THEY SHOULD.
Re: (Score:3)
Bailouts of companies that big should come in the form of government takeovers. Contrary to popular belief, crown corporations often do quite well, and after the government has recouped its outlay, they can divest and make it a private company again—and with a strong union in place. But I am 100% against giving those companies money that they'll use to spend on CEOs and corporate bonuses, angling for the next way to fleece taxpayers when times are bad, and avoid taxes when times are good. Losing those
Re: (Score:2)
I work for a real estate firm, which falls under the category of finance. Everyone is working, even receptionists.
I kinda agree (Score:5, Interesting)
As a capitalist who believes that you should keep what you earn, I agree with. I think this person makes a good case. It's often the people who have an opulence of money who make the large investments. Many of them are simply gambling with money that they can spare. Why bail them out when John Doe is just trying to keep his living wage?
However, I think this kind of thinking may also destroy my 401k investments and ultimately my retirement fund. So this is not a simple solution. Allowing the working class to keep supporting themselves, while also allowing me to live off of my hard work in my old age, is not something that can be easily solved. Keeping large companies afloat is the best option right now because they are the ones employing people.
I certainly do not want the rich to suffer. It's not like they aren't working for their money (contrary to what people seem to believe). However, if you have enough to gamble on investments, then the government shouldn't be bailing you out if you lost the gamble.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation is the gentlest way to erase private debt.
It's also the way economists hate the most unfortunately.
Re:I kinda agree (Score:4, Insightful)
Your 401k will likely recover over time. It depends on how long you have until requirement, but I wouldn't look on this as much more than a few years of bad news and then a return to normal.
But this isn't really about suffering, it's just about capitalism working the way capitalism should. Huge companies are the only ones really getting bailed out right now, and the working class is left to fend for themselves. But this will keep happening as long as we keep bailing big companies out.
Capitalism ultimately *relies* on companies failing and going out of business as a way to clear away the bad business plans and greedy CEOs that don't care about making good companies, only short-term profits. Let cruise lines die. Let some airlines go bankrupt—do we really think no new ones will appear? Let hotels go under; someone will eventually buy up that property. Are you an AirBnB baron, renting dozens of apartments so you can then put them up on AirBnB while also screwing local rental markets? No sympathy.
And the money that the government saves on NOT bailing out companies can be given directly to people. You still can make rent, buy groceries, stay home and stay healthy. This should be the government's time to shine. Let's see how it shakes out.
Re: (Score:3)
Huge companies are the only ones really getting bailed out right now
Actually, most of the bailout is for small businesses. Not only did they get allocated most of the money, they get much better terms. Big business is mostly getting loans which must be repaid. Small businesses are getting loans which will be forgiven as long as they maintain their payroll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's business as usual in America (Score:5, Insightful)
Capitalism for the poor. Socialism for the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
yep.
This guy is crazy, and he's one of the rich guys. (Score:4, Insightful)
Read the article and do a little research on HIS company. $1.2 billion in assets? Yup, he's all about the little guy starting up business as they say "that serve the greater good". Never liked the sound of that phrase as it's only HIS definition of greater good. Might not be yours or mine.
Better yet, his stupid dumb notion of the Fed giving every man, woman and child, half a million dollars? Do a quick search on hyperinflation in Germany in the 1920's and this is exactly what you would get. You can't just print money and not expect a loaf of bread to cost $10,000. Not to mention all of the retirements/pensions it just destroyed. Wow, your pension is $3000 a month? Now you can't even feed yourself. And by the way, these are the average people in America, not the ultra rich.
Please, why do we listen to people like this?
Re: (Score:2)
Is he describing a problem that doesn't exist? (Score:2)
Given that hedge funds are in the finance industry, they aren't closed and don't have to let anyone go. Finance is considered essen
Re: (Score:2)
you're living in a bubble.
Profits (Score:2)
Obviously Trump and his friends should be allowed to profit from this pandemic. They are smart, remember?
Bankruptcy courts are a limited resource (Score:2)
Government should just commit to running 10% inflation for a couple years purely by throwing stimulus money at the lower/middle class and paying for it with QE (ie. money from helicopters).
With that inflation hovering over their heads banks would be desperate to give small businesses loans, so those businesses could bridge the debt gap build up over the shutdown.
Problem solved.
Re: (Score:2)
So, in 3 years lower/middle class will be paying $1.33 for every $1 they used to have. I'm pretty sure wages will not keep up, so what then? Give them more money, which will make more inflation. Round and round we go.
So you're going to make the banks give out loans by higher inflation? How does that work? Interest rates will skyrocket. The bank is there to make money not give it away. They have to match the dollars they loaded to the now inflated dollars they are getting back at a later date.
The Great CEO/Board Member Exodus (Score:2)
And then very coincidentally the stock market takes a huge COVID-19 plunge in February 2020.
Don't think for a minute that your elected officials will do anything to hound CEOs. After all, CEOs and the like are the ones donating to re-election funds and lobbying for more profit and whatever agendas they may have.
Don't be a rube (Score:2, Interesting)
People in power help the people who might help them in return. What are poor people going to do for a Congressman or a Federal Reserve banker? What are poor people going to do for those guys' family members? Do you really think those guys will choose to help the average guy with little to offer over the rich and powerful guy who can help a lot? Really?
This keeps coming up. Some of you guys keep thinking you will use government power against someone rich or whatever. So you give the government more pow
HA HA HA. You really think that could work?? (Score:2)
The difference between the billionaires and the poor is that the billionaires have MONEY.
One of the first things you do after getting more than say $50 million. is to diversify. They don't just own an airline, they have gold, shares of Amazon, shares of telecom companies, Treasury bonds, annuities, physical cash in a bank, etc.
They will not get wiped out. They will take accept what losses they have, then take the money they have invested in safe investments and put it into the tech stocks that are doin
WONTFIX - Working As Designed (Score:2)
What Palihapitiya, and a lot of other people, don't understand is that the US Federal Government no longer represents the average American citizen. They represent their corporate owners, and have done so for decades.
That's not this works (Score:2)
We had somebody saying that. He just dropped out. The people have spoken, and they're afraid of change.
Re:This is what I've been saying (Score:5, Interesting)
I wouldn't say shut down wall street, it does have a purpose although it needs adjustment to level the playing field between small investments and charge. A 5% return on $10,000 is laughable while a 5% return on a billion is obscene.
That said, obviously you have to let the wealthy investors fail. If these companies want bailouts it should come at the price of new stock which dillutes existing stock and goes into a fund where it will be invested and managed to grow and pay toward a UBI.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think it would have been quite brilliant to put a rider on any government bailout loan to large publicly traded corporations that they must issue or otherwise grant to the United States Treasury a low double-digit percentage of non-voting non-dilutable stock. Say, 15%.
When you pay back the loan, the Treasury has the option of liquidating the stock, or can hang onto it as the Treasury Secretary decides. Dividends from this stock would go directly to the Treasury to fund social programs and small business
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When we run out of money, your 401k will be one of the first piggybanks to get busted open. Count on it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I personally have been saying the government should be saying to non-essential rich people like sports players, hollywood coke fiends, and megachurches "Hand over 40% of your wealth to the pandemic effort, or we show up with armed soldiers and leave you with nothing."
If we can draft 18 year old men to fight nobodies in Asia, we can draft wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK, footballers (some on £115k per week) are outraged that the government has suggested (not made them, only suggested the idea) that they take a bit of a pay cut so that the staff at the football clubs can continue to be paid.
https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/02... [metro.co.uk]
oh, and the clubs want the government to pay for the staff wages while the pandemic rages. the players union (with £50m in the bank) are very happy to keep it there too.
Re: (Score:2)
Their reaction to being told to take a pay cut justifies them getting a pay cut tbh.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be easier to say to those offshore nations "Help us reclaim our tax money you get 25%". Also a megachurch is not a church, it's a moneymaking/extortion/laundering/tax evasion scam masquerading as a religion.
One slight problem (Score:3)
A lovely idea, just one small problem. Who do you think controls the government? It's sure as heck not the little people - they don't even fund it. In 2016 the bottom 50% of the population paid 3% of the total income tax revenue, while the top 1% paid 38%. (Of course income tax is only about 51% of all federal tax revenue, payroll tax is 35%)
That's the problem with any sort of "stick it to the man" plan - the man mostly controls the government, so you're going to need a revolution. Democracy theoretical
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Yep, we never had anything before the investors came along. <eyeroll>
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep, we never had anything before the investors came along. <eyeroll>
Almost half of the code of Hammurabi deals with contract enforcement. Financial dealings and investments have been with us a loooooong time.
Re: (Score:2)
> Financial dealings and investments have been with us a loooooong time.
Longer than fiber networks? ;)
We had kings and lords, who became barons (Score:2, Insightful)
Before the public company, the corporation, all the capital was controlled by the king, who partitioned it among the lords. Fitting the transition, we had the barons. Now you and I can own the fiber companies, the shipping companies, whatever we choose to own. You'd rather go back to the king owning it all?
Re: (Score:2)
Before capitalism we had patrons, kings, etc. Large ventures such as a merchant ship required investment even 1000 years ago.
If society doesn't have private wealth to make investment decisions, you'll need a public investment to take it's place. This can be make to work but has its own consequences.
Under a public system, you will have to wade through red tape only to find out that your kind of venture doesn't meet the strict definition of what is allowed by the process. And must apply for a loan instead of
Re: (Score:2)
Don't mix up invention and technical progress with investors.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't mix up invention and technical progress with investors.
Since the creation of modern capitalism in the late 1700s, inventions and technical progress have disproportionately happened in capitalist countries.
Re: (Score:2)
Still, correlation does not imply causation.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit. Most drug research in the US is ALL BASED ON BASIC RESEARCH FUNDED BY THE NIH (your tax dollars). The rest are replacements for new patentable drugs, that may not be any better than the current one*, but the current one is going out of patent.
* Several year ago, India refused one manufacturer a patent because the "new one" was NO BETTER than the old, and therefore not new or innovative enough to be worth a patent.
Re: (Score:3)
The current situation on medicines, as opposed to procedures, DOES work out pretty well for Canadians. The US citizens basically pay for the R&D, which is the bulk of the cost, and then Canadians pay production costs + profit. That works for you. You just have to hope that the US doesn't move to the same policy, where they stop paying for the R&D, so there would be no new medications.
> to feed the money hungry machine with your own wallet and spend whatever you want, make whatever excuses you wa
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Right, thanks for reminding me that private enterprise turned something educational and fun into this shit-mire of social media whores, scams, and mega-corporate dominance.
Re: Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're trying to say that WallStreet/investors is the same as "I bought 20$ worth of part (invested money) and used 50 hours of my time (invested time)" to confuse the issue.
Re: (Score:2)
And less formal investment went on for a *long* time before that. From coffee houses in Amsterdam to giving your brother some seeds to start his farm.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
We also wouldn't have boondoggles like WeWork and all the companies that imploded during the dot com bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
WeWork was a massive transfer of wealth out of some billionaire's bank accounts. Sure, most of it went to other billionaires, but at least it was in play for a bit, and some of it got spread around to the regular people.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they're going to suffer them.
Which has nothing to do with "shutting down Wall Street". You know, the central thesis of the original poster.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
And they're going to suffer them.
No, they are not. They are being bailed out. They keep their trillions, and we suffer austerity to pay it off.
We have to shut it down, not give them a single penny.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Imagine being so utterly naive/brainwashed as to think that investors who are getting bankrupted by a global virus pandemic have "trillions".
Most investors are people saving for retirement. Their total funds are measured in six digits, seven if they're especially skillful.
Just because you have a pathological hatred of the moderately wealthy doesn't mean that moderately wealthy don't deserve to be kept afloat with the rest of the economy.
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
Most investors are people saving for retirement
By body count? Yeah you're right. By dollar invested and therefore power to make change within that system? Not even fucking close.
Just because you have a pathological hatred of the moderately wealthy
It doesn't take that, it only requires a sense of scale of things. All of the grandma and grandpa investors pale in comparison to the top tier holders. I've filed 13Ds for a many a client and I can tell you. Grandma and grandpa aren't fucking holding any power compared to these people.
moderately wealthy don't deserve to be kept afloat with the rest of the economy
They don't, they can rightly go fuck off. They made shit calls on running on razor thin margins and unable to hold anything back for something (disease) that has existed since the start of time. If you can't have some semblance of economic propriety and still run, then you don't deserve to run a company. How airlines in particular are ran in the US has been something that's just been begging for a collapse. The way the US airline model is ran is unsustainable in any measure of that term. It doesn't deserve to be saved, it deserves to die and have something that is sustainable replace it. But now, we've kicked that can down to the next disaster.
So many people are like, "Oh no! You couldn't have ever predicted such a thing like this would ever happen!" And while I might grant that for the exact date, fucking pandemics happen and here's a hot tip, another one will happen sometime between now and 2120. And after that, there will be another one, and another one, and another one, and another one after that. Save your damn money up because random shit happens all the fucking time. The way the US created their airline business made that impossible to do. That was a dumb call that deserves to suffer the downside to capitalism. There's zero argument for why we should defend the fucked up ways we create these razor thin markets. THEY. DO. NOT. DESERVE. TO. EXIST!
Re: (Score:3)
when you have a billion plus people with tens to hundreds of thousands each in such funds, biggest billionnaires in the world sit down and shut up, because they're tiny and insignificant in comparison.
Are you under the delusion that those billion people have any say at all in how those funds are run? No, they're run by multi-millionaires who work closely with the billionaires, I'll guarantee that Stephen Schwarzman listens to Jamie Dimon a lot more than he listens to all of the investors in Blackstone comb
Re:Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:4, Insightful)
There are plenty of countries that manage to do just fine without investors owning their infrastructure. In fact, the US coverage of fiber networks serves the corporatocracy, not the people it purports to support when it goes to Congress whining for handouts.
There is an oil company, with a nice big data center, in the middle of nowhere with a huge fiber interconnect... No one along the right of way even has internet. Nope, not even DSL. The fiber? Yeah laid by AT&T through public easement. Where does AT&T go to beg for money when they have infrastructure problems?
USians are very poorly served by their corporate oligarchs. The quality of life here has been decreasing, the purchasing power of the average wage earner has been decreasing, while the wealth disparity decreases, class mobility decreases, and you're defending vulture capitalists? Good job. There's a town in Nebraska of people that built a perfectly good company, making very good profits and good products who's entire town was destroyed so that an 'investor' could make an extra million or eight.
Why don't you go tell them how their life is enhanced by investors?
Re: Curious what kind of work you do. No Slashdot (Score:2)
I work for a profitable business. If your company is not profitable, then you're someone's bitch. In this case, you are the economy's bitch. Get over it.
Built by King Henry VIII (Score:2)
That's right. King Henry VIII built a nationwide fiber network several years before us commoners were allowed to participate in owning the capital via public corporations. We don't need to let the plebes invest, it works fine to have the kings and lords own it all.