I appreciate the good vibes sent and the motivation.
Your brother seems both conflicted and distracted by the market’s collusion with a corruptive Trump Presidency. Instead of Adam Smith’s invisible hand theory I got one better: the market’s sleight of hand.
It only takes one of their own to run and win the White House for widespread market collusion like this to occur. Deregulation, which amounts to unfettered markets and tax cuts that boosts the bottom line and fatten the already bulging pockets of the rich brings a sense of euphoria not only for the already wealthy but for the wanna be wealthy. This is sentiment that reinterprets overall economic activity for unlimited upside potential.
The upside potential under President Obama had the potential but lacked the unlimited part. Now we all know that anyone who sells you on an idea that has unlimited upside potential is a scam artist. This appears to be lost on most Americans who seem to have amnesia of the periods when republicans control the government. The market sentiment is extremely heightened with Trump the Distractor at the helm.
The arrangement is what I like to call this particular market sentiment. In Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the Moral Sentiments theory is sincere fiction about the notion that actors in the market are an impartial bunch that spectate with moral judgement in tow. 🤔 Yes, like they did during the Financial Crisis and Housing Bubble barely a decade ago. C’mon now. This didn’t turn out to be in the interests of the general public nor its happiness when pensions were wiped out, and millions were unemployed. That stress reverberated unto the remaining folks who were employed and overworked.
With lopsided representation of actual shares held in the democracy of the market, having them setting the standards or acting as market gods should not qualify as consensus nor true value. The normal hard working American has zero influence over market prices and wouldn’t have the wherewithal to effect the market — even if they attempted to collude in doing so en masse by heading for their retirement portfolio such changes aren’t instantaneous, it would take up to 2 business days of unimaginable coordination to effect such trades.
And at some point, when they are through automating and robotizing everything human what will the economy look like then? Robots don’t buy from each other, nor do they have desires, wants, interests or needs that essentially make an economy work.
This is a couple of examples of why a fair and representative government is necessary and why every vote needs to count. Wall Street will try to influence votes by “moderating the blue wave” because of thier own sentiment towards regulating their free-wheeling and rent-seeking attitudes and behaviors.
What Billionaires Want: The Secret Influence of America’s 100 Richest
A new study reveals how the wealthy engage in ‘stealth politics’: quietly advancing unpopular, inequality-exacerbating…
The very top titans — Warren Buffett, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates — have all taken left-of-center stands on various issues, and Buffett and Gates are paragons of philanthropy. The former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg is known for his advocacy of gun control, gay rights, and environmental protection. George Soros (protector of human rights around the world) and Tom Steyer(focused on young people and environmental issues) have been major donors to the Democrats.
Unfortunately, this picture is misleading. Our new, systematic study of the 100 wealthiest Americans indicates that Buffett, Gates, Bloomberg et al are not at all typical. Most of the wealthiest US billionaires — who are much less visible and less reported on — more closely resemble Charles Koch. They are extremely conservative on economic issues. Obsessed with cutting taxes, especially estate taxes — which apply only to the wealthiest Americans. Opposed to government regulation of the environment or big banks. Unenthusiastic about government programs to help with jobs, incomes, healthcare, or retirement pensions — programs supported by large majorities of Americans. Tempted to cut deficits and shrink government by cutting or privatizing guaranteed social security benefits.
How can this be so? If it is true, why aren’t voters aware and angry about it?