Is it your belief that if the government wasn't (lightly) mandating lockdowns economy would be doing fine? Or maybe not fine, but significantly better?
Most of the decline in economic activity happened before the lockdowns went into effect. People didn't/don't want to go out, with or without the lockdowns.
Is what communism? An increase in the stock market as people lose their jobs? I don't really understand the question.
Communism is a system where all goods are owned by the public that take from it what they need.
I can't think of a true communist country today.
Socialism is a system where the means of production and the means of distribution are not privately owned, but owned by the government or worker collectives.
I am using actual definitions, look it up in the Merriam Webster dictionary.
There's never been a true communist country in history. Spain came close in the very early days of the Spanish Revolution, but it didn't last.
The "Communism" that the Soviet Union used, and that North Korea uses today, isn't communism at all, but rather a totalitarian dictatorship dressed up in pretty colors.
And "Communist" China and Vietnam are two of the most capitalist places I've ever been.
April 10th, 2020 at 10:23 PM ^
The Soviet Union and other “communist” states during the Cold War were officially ”socialist republics.”According to Marxist theory, socialism serves as the transitionary period between the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of communism with the dissolution of the state, meaning they hadn’t actually yet achieved communism.
North Korea is actually no longer “communist,” as they officially removed any references to Marxism and Communism from their state constitution in 2009 and now claim Juche to be their official state ideology.
Both China and Vietnam abandoned their economic Marxism/centralized economies decades ago, but their respective ruling communist parties didn’t relax their political grip. So they’re....capitalist communists now? Haha.
Excuse my nerding out.
That makes sense. Little-c communism is best compared to anarchy; but, after the Haymarket Square Riot, most people think of the Bomb-Throwing Anarchist trope as opposed to just the idea of "nobody's in charge; we're all in this together." Of course, the Soviet big-C Communist party didn't seem to be in any hurry to finish the transition and take themselves out of power. :)
And it was the anarchists who controlled portions of Spain during the Civil War, running small-c communism in Catalonia... but the big-C Communist Soviets came in on the side of the Republicans to fight both the anarchists and the Fascists. (The Spanish Civil War had three sides: the Republicans in the current government; the Fascists, led by Franco, in the military; and the anarchists, led by the strongest labor union in the country).
And, I guess you're right about North Korea, although I thought Juche was an extension of Maoist Communism. Cuba still pretends to be big-C Communists, although I'm not sure how true that is in practice.
And, yes, I'd say that both China and Vietnam are capitalist big-C Communist countries -- highly capitalistic police states.
Beam me up, Mister Speaker!
Yes, we’re consolidating wealth ... yet even the poor are far better off today than ever.
The more capitalism works, the more it drags everyone up with it.
The poor are better off everywhere in the world. I'm not sure if the US has had the same growth since most of that is just quality of life consistently improving everywhere. I could be wrong though.
The middle class is socialist countries, let alone the poor in many countries, would disagree with you I think.
I have a friend that has been to dozens of 3rd world countries. He laughs that Census statistics show the majority of poor in America have internet, cable TV subscription, and AC of some fashion. Yes over 83% of Americans living in poverty have AC.
He says the poor in 3rd world countries have literal holes in the wall, often no electricity or running water.
He isn't heartless either, he just always notes the difference between US poverty and 3rd world poverty.
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-americans…
I would agree that a poor person in the U.S. is better off than a poor person in say, El Salvador, but should that really be our point of comparison?
When we look at our quality of life, our comparison should be with other developed countries: the Western European nations, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand...
I am responding to a person that says the poor everywhere on Earth have it better than the poor in the US. That poster hasn't traveled much apparently.
Yeah - I mean, would I rather be poor in the U.S. than El Salvador or Zimbabwe or Myanmar? Sure. But I don't get these 'poor people don't have it so bad these days' arguments. There seems to be an undercurrent of 'they have AC and toasters - they're not suffering enough' and I just don't get that attitude.
We shouldn't pretend that hunger and lack of adequate health care and other problems that plague the poor aren't prevalent here as well. It's like some people on here want the poor to have even less: if they're not shoeless with soot on their face like a kid in the Great Depression then they're not really poor.
"Candy bars. They usually come in a wrapper. Just like you... wrap a Christmas present. Christmas happens when it's cold. Cold, as in Alaska - that's... with polar bears. Polar bears... pola... polarity!" "Butt sex requires a lot of lubrication, right? Lubrication. Lubruh... Chupuh... Chupacabra 's the, the goat killer of Mexican folklore. Folklore is stories from the past that are often fictionalized. Fictionalized to heighten drama. Drama students! Students at colleges usually have bicycles! Bi, bian, binary. It's binary code!"
Cramer is bald. Bald. Bald is synonymous with naked. Naked. Just like we all get naked. Naked greed, at the expense of American employees. Employees … Chains, chans ... it never ends.
3 economic collapses in the last 20 years. There were 1.5 in 80 years prior to 2000.
Bailouts go to large banks that rob the Treasury, hedge funds, for profit colleges, and other PAC and large donors' companies.
This stimulus heist will lead to inflation and higher taxes on the working class which will destroy the service industry.
It's not sustainable.
Artificially low interest rates for the past decade has encouraged companies to grab up as much debt as possible.
Richard Duncan has pointed out that all debt at all levels national, state, city governments and households and businesses was 1 trillion dollars in 1964. It was 50 trillion by 2013 and is 78 trillion today.
The Fed has encouraged everyone to max out debt when interest rates are below inflation. This saturation of debt at all levels will have a bad ending.
There are no free lunches.
The big corporations have tons of debt the are constantly 'rolling'. Thus when the credit markets break down -- they all have to be bailed out -- at least indirectly by the Fed buying all the corporate debt.
Yep, the Fed that encourages debt saturation is currently buying up junk bonds to prop up zombie companies that would die under normal interest rate environments.
April 11th, 2020 at 12:23 AM ^
But there are free lunches if the federal government comes in and buys that debt every time something goes bad. This is the 3rd time since 2008.
Risk doesn't exist if you know you can never fail, or to put it more bluntly you've rigged the system by buying the people in office that will make sure you never fail.
April 11th, 2020 at 11:33 AM ^
I get what you are saying, but it still isn't free.
The federal government still has to pay for those bailouts somehow: (A) they raise taxes and we the tax payers lose with increased taxes or they (B) create money out of thin air and play a dangerous game with our purchasing power as dollars become over abundant.
It still isn't a free lunch. The bailed out companies are getting a lunch, but we the people are going to pay for it in some fashion IMO.
Right, if I take your sandwich and eat it and face no consequences for it, I got a free lunch you have to pay for it. If I know I can do that everyday why would I buy a sandwhich.
BioAnal. I like it
Wait what we talking about?!
You need to take a class in finance. Stupid and not informed is no way to live an adult life.
No need to be a dick.
I agree with OP that a lot of this is screwed up. Hopefully there’s not another crisis anytime soon.
The OP is the dick. Shit posts like this is unbecoming of a Michigan grad.
That was a very compelling and convincing response. I appreciate all the details you included.
The stock market is forward looking. Those job losses were reflected in stock prices in prior weeks. The curve seems to be flattening.
The stock market being up and it be going down. Karl Malone keeps his money in his sock
And yet many people still think the stock market is the economy.
You just hit the nail on the head.
plus 1 !
Exactly what I was getting at, OwenGoBlue, with my post earlier about the "golden calf" many worship, i.e., the stock market. This includes not just the general public but even more the "leadership" (both sides of the political aisle are guilty of this) who point to stock market gains or losses to "prove" their preferred political agenda and to preserve or regain their political power.
And the gullible simpletons who blindly buy in are essentially the sheep being led to slaughter.
No. The stock market IS NOT the economy.
I think there are a couple things at play here:
A) the stock market can be tangibly measured even if it is in a bubble.
B) people care about the stock market, because they have pensions, IRAs, 401Ks, brokerages, which all depend in part on stocks.
This is why both parties promote stock market bubbles with Quantitative Easing, lower interest rates, allowing stock buy backs...is because a higher stock market does appeal to voters - who willingly ignore that it is artificially inflated, because people like the Fed chair deny that stocks are a bubble in 1929, 1987, 2008, 2020....
Cramer is a blithering idiot. That's what's wrong
Always kinda fun to relive this career highlight.
This is so true
This is the truth ! Cramer is an idiot. Michigan grads should not follow this garbage. MSU and OSU grads yes, but UM grads no. A fool and his money are soon parted.
Regardless of your political and economic views, that is one hell of a screen grab.
Capitalism has created the greatest amount of wealth the world has ever seen (except maybe for Mansa Musa, who was so generous he destroyed an entire economy, thus proving that even in the 14th century, socialism didn’t work).
every one of us has the opportunity to be the next Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos. But 99.9% of us don’t have the combination of intellect + amazing idea to make that happen.
what we have in the US is the most fair system on the planet to make money ... and one reason why people born elsewhere flock to the US.
Any form of wealth redistribution is immoral (unless stealing is somehow moral). This isn’t Robin Hood stealing from the rich in a monarchy .... this is capitalism. We can all go make our $
Bezos can’t go to hell
He’s immune from God? Damn. Good on him then.
Unless we're redistributing it upwards, then it's cool.
every one of us has the opportunity to be the next Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos.
It's a bit tougher for a guy from Detroit to found his own start-up than it is for someone from Bloomfield Hills. That's where those "immoral" government programs come in, to actually give the Detroit guy an opportunity.
Govt programs to help people build businesses are cool. Giving poor people money a rich person made just cuz the poor people are sad they’re poor is bullshit.
And Dan Gilbert was born in Detroit
Hes worth what ..... 6 billion? Maybe 7 billion.
Very very few get that point. And apparently, someone born in Detroit has about as much chance as someone born in Albuquerque (Bezos) or born in Seattle (Bill Gates)
April 10th, 2020 at 10:29 PM ^
If I looked at you and said "regulatory capture" would I get a blank stare? I'm guessing yes.
April 10th, 2020 at 10:45 PM ^
“Capitalism has created the greatest amount of wealth the world has ever seen.”
Thought experiment: how much money would you need to be compensated to be forced to time travel the 1920s? Meaning, given the improvement in standard of living in the last 100 years, how much would you need to be paid to give it all up?
Even living like Rockefeller in the 1920s is not as good as living as me right now, a poor middle class bum. You’d be giving up modern medicine, computers, tv, refrigeration, A/C, mobile phones, efficient cars, etc. So maybe like $100B or something insane is the trade off.
On the other hand, as I think about this, Michigan football was a powerhouse in the 1920s, so I’d probably take it back down to $90B. Beating OSU would be nice. Point is that our standard living has dramatically improved even if Michigan football has declined.
April 11th, 2020 at 12:29 AM ^
Capitalism only works with regulations and proper taxation. Otherwise you simply create a wealthy class of individuals who rule over the workers and this eventually breaks into an oligarchy. Then you no longer have capitalism.
We broke from capitalism when we began protecting banks in 2008, we've privatized profits, socialized losses. That's not capitalism and our wealth inequity quite clearly shows that.
April 11th, 2020 at 12:37 AM ^
Who regulates the regulators?