I'll just leave this here...
Robin Hood strikes again
Robin Hood strikes again
I think the main thing is to stop the vile hedge fund parasites in their grubby little tracks. They make money out of misery and clearly get grumpy when normal people give them a bloody nose.tell that to the people who bought the stock for more than what it will end up once the bubble bursts.... the only ones who'll win are those that bought early, then set the bubble off, then sold at a massive profit...
There seem to be people who have intentionally written off some of their money to send a message that shorting a company into oblivion to make a profit is a pretty grubby thing to do.tell that to the people who bought the stock for more than what it will end up once the bubble bursts.... the only ones who'll win are those that bought early, then set the bubble off, then sold at a massive profit...
"We want a free market... NO! NOT LIKE THAT!"It's strange how the big players are so focused on the rules when they're feeling the pinch. When they're the ones profiting, not so much.
They'll be bleating to be bailed out again.
Heaven forfend that the little kids get to play in the big boys' sandpit.
Short termism rules the stock market. I’ve always thought you should be required to own any stock you are selling, none of this borrowing to sell to drive the price down which also confuses me, why would someone holding stock “lend” it so someone else can drive the stock down in the hope that it will rise back to its current level. its more likely the original investment will be worth less after the shenanigans are finished.I often wonder what a society with no stock market would be like, since generally speaking it seems to me that in the age of neo-capitalism its primary function is to make more money for those that already have it. Quite a difference from when originally it was more about allowing small companies raise money to invest where now it seems that having to answer to investors and shareholders actually stifles rather than promotes growth.
However, on the other hand, hedge funds and the like are now the main way that pensions become viable. For those that no longer can look forward to a state pension providing what we will need, despite having paid in for many years, it is going to be a big blow if our private/workplace pensions that we've also paid in for many years, also don't pay out.
I have no clue what the answer is!
Er, a society without one, will most likely develop one... after all they arose out of people meeting to do business in places like coffee houses. They only became institutions, because govt realised they had to be regulated to stop bad things happening (with more or less success).I often wonder what a society with no stock market would be like, since generally speaking it seems to me that in the age of neo-capitalism its primary function is to make more money for those that already have it. Quite a difference from when originally it was more about allowing small companies raise money to invest where now it seems that having to answer to investors and shareholders actually stifles rather than promotes growth.
However, on the other hand, hedge funds and the like are now the main way that pensions become viable. For those that no longer can look forward to a state pension providing what we will need, despite having paid in for many years, it is going to be a big blow if our private/workplace pensions that we've also paid in for many years, also don't pay out.
I have no clue what the answer is!
Indeed it will. My point was more about it no longer resembling in function what it originally was formulated to achieve. Much the same as capitalism itself in that originally it fostered competition (and invention) where now, any sniff of competition gets bought by the big fish, then either shut down or assimilated to amass more for the benefit of same.Er, a society without one, will most likely develop one... after all they arose out of people meeting to do business in places like coffee houses. They only became institutions, because govt realised they had to be regulated to stop bad things happening (with more or less success).
Yes, the trouble is, to not get to where we are now would have needed a shed load of extra regulation (still no guarantee, either - law of unintended consequences).Indeed it will. My point was more about it no longer resembling in function what it originally was formulated to achieve. Much the same as capitalism itself in that originally it fostered competition (and invention) where now, any sniff of competition gets bought by the big fish, then either shut down or assimilated to amass more for the benefit of same.
Think this may have drifted from archery somewhat!
Ooooh, money... it's like the ultimate conspiracy theory: the fiction that everyone wants to believe is real.Its a bit like physics, you cant create or destroy money because it is only a conceptual value applied to what is real. The peopel of the world were robbed when they accepted paper money instead of something material so the curent new is just an extension of that. We wont win in the long run they will change the rules again if we get close.