Why Wall Street Matters, why socialists are wrong

[The New Sea Territory]

Also Warren is somewhat of a radical when she talks about banks, and many progressives who follow suit are as well.

I don't think you know what "radical" means if you are calling progressives "radical".

[Ripoll]

Also Warren is somewhat of a radical when she talks about banks, and many progressives who follow suit are as well.

I don't think you know what "radical" means if you are calling progressives "radical".

"thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms"

"favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms"

That describes progressives very well in the fact that they want to overhaul banking regulations, overhaul healthcare, overhaul social security and so fourth.

[Ripoll]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't progressivism generally refer to a spectra of social views as opposed to economic ones?

No

[Ripoll]

Whether progressives are wrong or not is irrelevant to the question "is Wall Street necessary", which the answer is obviously no. The economy could be managed in a democratic, decentralized way by workers rather than hierarchical power structures like megacorporations.

No think Articles of Confederation and the financial disaster that was, not even full anarchy. Complete anarchy would be preposterous and irrational.

[European Socialist Republic]

I don't think you know what "radical" means if you are calling progressives "radical".

"thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms"

"favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms"

That describes progressives very well in the fact that they want to overhaul banking regulations, overhaul healthcare, overhaul social security and so fourth.

You think progressives are extreme? What are socialists, communists and left-anarchists then?

[Ripoll]

"thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms"

"favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms"

That describes progressives very well in the fact that they want to overhaul banking regulations, overhaul healthcare, overhaul social security and so fourth.

You think progressives are extreme? What are socialists, communists and left-anarchists then?

absurd and non-existent in the real world

[Hoyteca]

The problem with Wall Street is that it's too important, as demonstrated in 1929 and 2008. Too much regulation and economic growth slows to a trickle. Too little regulation and Wall Street tears itself apart, taking much of the world's economy with it. If you think I'm kidding, look at what happened after the crashes of 1929 and 2008. Bubbles burst, Wall Street crashes, and the economies of so many countries follow suit.

The biggest problem with Wall Street is the "Greed is good" mentality. There's little incentive to plan past the next few quarters. Fads are chased. Bubbles form. Politicians receive "incentives" from big corporations to be a "little" bit "friendlier". There's little incentive for executives to make their company prosper when bonuses are guaranteed and golden-parachutes are aplenty.

Economies need real diversity. just like Ireland's 19th century potato famine was caused by an over-reliance on a single type of potato, most of our economic crashes have been caused by an over-reliance on Wall Street. When Wall Street prospers, so does the economy. When Wall Street falls, it takes everyone else down with it.

[Norstal]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't progressivism generally refer to a spectra of social views as opposed to economic ones?

Not really. Progressives were the ones who started off charities and basic welfare in the early 1900s.

[Ripoll]

The problem with Wall Street is that it's too important, as demonstrated in 1929 and 2008. Too much regulation and economic growth slows to a trickle. Too little regulation and Wall Street tears itself apart, taking much of the world's economy with it. If you think I'm kidding, look at what happened after the crashes of 1929 and 2008. Bubbles burst, Wall Street crashes, and the economies of so many countries follow suit.

The biggest problem with Wall Street is the "Greed is good" mentality. There's little incentive to plan past the next few quarters. Fads are chased. Bubbles form. Politicians receive "incentives" from big corporations to be a "little" bit "friendlier". There's little incentive for executives to make their company prosper when bonuses are guaranteed and golden-parachutes are aplenty.

Economies need real diversity. just like Ireland's 19th century potato famine was caused by an over-reliance on a single type of potato, most of our economic crashes have been caused by an over-reliance on Wall Street. When Wall Street prospers, so does the economy. When Wall Street falls, it takes everyone else down with it.

Wall Street by definition is the collective term for financial services and capital markets in general. Of course the economy relies on them "too" much. Mainly because they are largely operated by credit without which we would not be able to advance as fast as we have. The problem with 2008 was Government intervention under the bush administration which basically wanted everyone to buy a home. This was completely unsustainable and in many ways had the financial industry been left to it's on devices the 2008 financial crisis wouldn't have been as major as it was.

Of course there are incentives to plan beyond the first few quarters, they wan't to maximize profits over long periods of time. It's stupid to just throw away money just because the Fed is going to keep making loans. The Great Depression was caused by a lackluster central banking system and the 2008 financial crisis was simply caused by mass fraud. They broke the law, it wasn't like there was no regulation to put it in place, plus the fed kept interest rates much too low during times of economic prosperity, and the Bush administration failed to start paying down debts during time of growth.

2008 was the perfect storm and not exclusively wall street's fault

[Ripoll]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but doesn't progressivism generally refer to a spectra of social views as opposed to economic ones?

Not really. Progressives were the ones who started off charities and basic welfare in the early 1900s.

back when the liberal wing of the democrats had reasoning and common sense ^

Nowadays it's all about warren and what she doesn't understand

[Stormwind-City]

Not really. Progressives were the ones who started off charities and basic welfare in the early 1900s.

back when the liberal win of the democrats had reasoning and common sense ^

Nowadays it's all about warren and what she doesn't understand

Stop conflating Warren as representing the entire American left.

[Communist Volkstrad]

You think progressives are extreme? What are socialists, communists and left-anarchists then?

absurd and non-existent in the real world

Considering I'm able to be typing this here, I technically exist in the real world.

Although Socialists don't have much voice in the USA, there are other parts of the world where they do.

[Ripoll]

absurd and non-existent in the real world

Considering I'm able to be typing this here, I technically exist in the real world.

Although Socialists don't have much voice in the USA, there are other parts of the world where they do.

I didn't know China, India, Japan, etc. were all socialist nations. Socialism doesn't work and never will.

[Ripoll]

back when the liberal win of the democrats had reasoning and common sense ^

Nowadays it's all about warren and what she doesn't understand

Stop conflating Warren as representing the entire American left.

Not just warren, Bernie Sanders too.

They don't make up the majority of the American left not by a LONG shot. They do make up the leaders of the progressive wing (now a picnic for socialists apparently)

[Stormwind-City]

Considering I'm able to be typing this here, I technically exist in the real world.

Although Socialists don't have much voice in the USA, there are other parts of the world where they do.

I didn't know China, India, Japan, etc. were all socialist nations. Socialism doesn't work and never will.

*Looks at a map of Europe*

[Ripoll]

I didn't know China, India, Japan, etc. were all socialist nations. Socialism doesn't work and never will.

*Looks at a map of Europe*

They have free markets (not socialists)

They also have shitty economies and are dipping into their 3rd or 4th recession because of excessive regulations.

[Stormwind-City]

Stop conflating Warren as representing the entire American left.

Not just warren, Bernie Sanders too.

They don't make up the majority of the American left not by a LONG shot. They do make up the leaders of the progressive wing (now a picnic for socialists apparently)

They can claim to be leaders all they want, they don't represent the American left.

[Ripoll]

Not just warren, Bernie Sanders too.

They don't make up the majority of the American left not by a LONG shot. They do make up the leaders of the progressive wing (now a picnic for socialists apparently)

They can claim to be leaders all they want, they don't represent the American left.

Who does then?

[Communist Volkstrad]

Considering I'm able to be typing this here, I technically exist in the real world.

Although Socialists don't have much voice in the USA, there are other parts of the world where they do.

I didn't know China, India, Japan, etc. were all socialist nations. Socialism doesn't work and never will.

I wasn't referring to them. There are plenty of places with Socialist parties.
I disagree. If implemented properly(I.E. Not like the failure that was the Soviet Union or its Satellites.), it could very well work.

[Fortschritte]

I didn't know China, India, Japan, etc. were all socialist nations. Socialism doesn't work and never will.

*Looks at a map of Europe*

Europe is completely devoid of socialism. Many Western European and Nordic nations are highly successful because of competitive free markets combined with generous social safety nets.

[Stormwind-City]

*Looks at a map of Europe*

They have free markets (not socialists)

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can be socialist and have free markets.

[Ripoll]

They have free markets (not socialists)

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can be socialist and have free markets.

You can't be a socialist and have private corporations though, didn't realize society owns the means of production in Europe

[Fortschritte]

They have free markets (not socialists)

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can be socialist and have free markets.

Erm, no, since co-operative ownership of the economy implies a lack of private property and free market business structure.

[Stormwind-City]

They can claim to be leaders all they want, they don't represent the American left.

Who does then?

No one in Congress. Congress doesn't adequately represent the people at all, otherwise things like gay marriage would be legal on a federal level by now.

[Stormwind-City]

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.
Socialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

You can be socialist and have free markets.

Erm, no, since co-operative ownership of the economy implies a lack of private property and free market business structure.

Ever heard of a Co-op?