Democrats cave on ACA shutdown.

[BlueOak]

On 11/11/2025 at 1:19 PM, Elliott said:

Republicans use disruption because that's all they can do. It's self-defeating though, it harms the country in an apparent way to voters, their pocketbooks. It is not a winning strategy long-term, politically or nationally. Democrats joining in on destroying the country is a terrible idea. This is basic Game Theory, a race to the bottom.

You speak about not using an outside perspective to view America.
Try not using an outside perspective to view the republicans.

A significant goal of their party is to make government (and other institutions) ineffective or publicly viewed as such, so power is consolidated. 
A terrible idea to someone upholding the status quo, sure. They are not.
 

On 11/11/2025 at 1:19 PM, Elliott said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, the 'right-ward' trend you're suggesting is essentially lower taxes, and not more redistribution. The u.s. is on the brink of financial collapse, that just currently doesn't allow for much of that. The current strategy to keep from going over the cliff is instead of increasing taxes substantially, it is to go into substantial debt and deflate the dollar. The u.s. is not a perfect analog of any other country, the rest of the world is affected by u.s. downturn unlike any other country, which causes a cascading effect here.

Personally, for me, its handcuffing disabled people in chairs when they protest.
It's gunning down people in cars by paramilitary.
Its arresting political opponents and their voting base.
 

On 11/11/2025 at 1:19 PM, Elliott said:

I see no real future for Republicans,

Oh they can always go more right. That's why nazi's like Nick Fuentes is now more in the conversation for example. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't an implosion point, but there are two points of attack you are dealing with, you are addressing one only: The first is you are weak. The second is the entire government is ineffective. 

As for not using other countries as a barometer for assessing whether an entire country has gone right. I can and will. As that's how we measure things, comparatively. 

**Look at the right's rise in Europe, no matter how much progress you make you will always have an idiotic sect using ignorance with a degree of temporary success. There is no finish line, everything is relative.

BRICS have had a certain amount of success trying to topple our way of life, but they are being pushed out, as Russia and China weakens so do their efforts.

Edited Thursday at 07:35 AM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

BRICS have had a certain amount of success trying to topple our way of life, but they are being pushed out, as Russia and China weakens so do their efforts.

I'm talking about Le Pen, Farage, AfD, Boris Johnson Brexit, Merz, Meloni.

If you think Fuentes is a canary in the coal mine, Google 'Rush Limbaugh'. He's been dead for years and he's still on the radio even. Fuentes is a clone.

While you're at it, Google 'Nahel Merzouk was fatally shot by a police officer in France'

Edited Thursday at 09:32 AM by Elliott

[BlueOak]

14 hours ago, Elliott said:

I'm talking about Le Pen, Farage, AfD, Boris Johnson Brexit, Merz, Meloni.

So am I.

A country's leadership is an amalgamation of many different factors. In the case of Europe, for several years this has changed due to eastern pressure of many different kinds. Some are easy to cite. War nearby. Being repeatedly threatened, Spies. Money for lobbying.  Eastern companies are buying up western ones and moving their influence in. Russia has been releasing mass waves of migrants for years. Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns and their repeated lies that are prominent (They were promised no NATO expansion, for example, which is a key lie). Straight up buying of influencers. Meddling in politics, buying off politicians directly, etc. There are also small things, like their continual flipping of important key resource areas, which indirectly means when dealing with them, we are forced to adapt to the way they wish certain things to be, the different ways logistics and supply chains or trade is regulated, and things like the cultural impact of their media, or immigration from their large populations.

Edited Thursday at 11:28 PM by BlueOak

[Elliott]

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

So am I.

A country's leadership is an amalgamation of many different factors. In the case of Europe, for several years this has changed due to eastern pressure of many different kinds. Some are easy to cite. War nearby. Being repeatedly threatened, Spies. Money for lobbying.  Eastern companies are buying up western ones and moving their influence in. Russia has been releasing mass waves of migrants for years. Russian and Chinese disinformation campaigns and their repeated lies that are prominent (They were promised no NATO expansion, for example, which is a key lie). Straight up buying of influencers. Meddling in politics, buying off politicians directly, etc. There are also small things, like their continual flipping of important key resource areas, which indirectly means when dealing with them, we are forced to adapt to the way they wish certain things to be, the different ways logistics and supply chains or trade is regulated, and things like the cultural impact of their media, or immigration from their large populations.

Why would China want Europe to shift Right?

[BlueOak]

11 hours ago, Elliott said:

Why would China want Europe to shift Right?

Let's do a few easy ones: Second biggest trading partner. Closer alignment with them. Less opposition to their expansionist policies. Removal of competition. 

Far right countries generally don't defend other countries half the globe away, or even just the continent. They are considerably more insular and only concerned in their direct national interests. This is helpful for a country dedicated to replacing America as the world power.

People are the world over trying to make it like them. They look at themselves and decide that's how the world should be, then spend their entire lives and energy focused on that.

Cue everyone telling me how America/China are different.
Yes. - That's part of the point.
The results are largely the same. Wars, competition, new ideologies trying to replace others, and new billionaires.
Same cycle, different reasons.

Edited 18 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

7 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Let's do a few easy ones: Second biggest trading partner. Closer alignment with them. Less opposition to their expansionist policies. Removal of competition. 

Far right countries generally don't defend other countries half the globe away, or even just the continent. They are considerably more insular and only concerned in their direct national interests. This is help for a country dedicated to replacing America as the world power.

People are the world over trying to make it like them. They look at themselves and decide that's how the world should be, then spend their entire lives and energy focused on that.

Cue everyone telling me how America/China are different.
Yes. - That's the point.
The results are largely the same. Wars, competition, and new billionaires.
Same cycle, different reasons.

This seems to be full of contradictions. Are you suggesting leftists are  threatening Chinese expansion with a leftist military-industrial-complex and want stricter trade policy? What countries are far-right examples to you?

 

"Trump sends US warship to China's coast - Newsweek

Apr 24, 2025 · An American warship sailed through a narrow sea corridor between China and Taiwan on Wednesday, Newsweek has learned, in a subtle …"

 

"senior Russian lawmaker, Alexei Zhuravlev, claimed in early November 2025 that Moscow recently delivered new Pantsir-S1 and Buk-M2E air defense systems to Venezuela."

 

"Nigel Farage advocates for a policy of decoupling and isolating China economically and politically, arguing it poses a threat to Western independence and values."

 

https://www.reuters.com

"Germany to re-examine 'security-relevant' China trade policies

6 days ago — This week Chancellor Merz broke with decades of German free trade dogma by calling for Europe to adopt protectionist measures"

 

"France's Le Pen vows to stand up against China in Indo-Pacific

May 13, 2021 "

 

 

"Macron may invite Xi Jinping to G7 summit in France — Bloomberg

1 day ago — France is considering inviting Chinese President Xi Jinping to the 2026 G7 summit. The initiative is being discussed with allies as Paris"

[BlueOak]

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But in the instance you are not @Elliott

I see no inconsistencies. Not sure where leftists in your questioning came from as I never mentioned them?
I would wager from your earlier posts, and then this absolute sort of question you can't see (or don't use) multiple countries in comparison to each other, or any kind of large potential political scale that allows for side-by-side comparison of policy and ideology, culture alignment, economic alignment etc.

Countries have national interests.
If trade benefits them, they'll trade.
If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb.
What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views.

It doesn't matter who I consider rightwing, almost all countries are center or rightwing. It matters how close other countries are ideologically are to others. Specifically in this case the level of authoritarism is a defining force.

Yeah Europe is certainly resisting the efforts of the eastern powers, but there is a rightward and authoritarian drift (due in part with increasing tension and the wars themselves, migration and eastern efforts). There was a heck of a lot of pushback to get any aid whatsoever into Ukraine, at some points Russia's cronies in certain countries have tried to outright sabotage it. It's no different in the South China Sea or Taiwan, Tibet, or East Turkestan - only geography makes such things significantly harder to aid Taiwan, for example.

 

https://www.politicalcompass.org/
https://www.politicalcompass.org/test - or the test itself might help for reference.

Edited 17 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

14 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

I see no inconsistencies. Not sure where leftists in your questioning came from as I never mentioned them?

I think you are being deliberately obtuse. But in the instance you are not @Elliott
 

By leftist I mean relative, obviously.

12 hours ago, Elliott said:

Why would China want Europe to shift Right?

 

1 hour ago, BlueOak said:

Let's do a few easy ones: Second biggest trading partner. Closer alignment with them. Less opposition to their expansionist policies. Removal of competition. 
 

 

 

 

You think europe has a military-industrial-complex threatening China?

Edited 17 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

8 minutes ago, Elliott said:

You think europe has a military-industrial-complex threatening China?

Do you think it needs this to be a threat to China?
Or do you think there are more weapon producers than there have ever been on planet earth right now?

China needs Europe aligned or at least subdued to dominate the planet, yes.
The economic and military power of Europe is a hurdle to BRICS dominance. Especially as we are moving to 5% of GDP on defense in Europe now over time, for reference, countries barely put 2% in previously.

[Elliott]

19 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Do you think it needs this to be a threat to China?

Ya. Are you familiar with the Vietnam and Korean wars, the "sophisticated" west got their asses kicked by peasants.

Quote

China needs Europe aligned or at least subdued to dominate the planet, yes.
The economic and military power of Europe is a hurdle to BRICS dominance.

Do you consider China to be left or right? BRICS, left or right?

 

Again, contradictory. You say Europe is Right and militarized, yet China wants Europe to move further Right? So they're less militarized?

Quote

Or do you think there are more weapon producers than there have ever been on planet earth right now?

 

Especially as we are moving to 5% of GDP on defense in Europe now over time, for reference, countries barely put 2% in previously.

Because of Europe's rightward shift.

Edited 16 hours ago by Elliott

[BlueOak]

12 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Ya. Are you familiar with the Vietnam and Korean wars, the "sophisticated" west got their asses kicked by peasants.

Do you consider China to be left or right? BRICS, left or right?

Again, contradictory. You say Europe is Right and militarized, yet China wants Europe to move further Right? So they're less militarized?

Because of Europe's RIGHTWARD shift.

Okay. And what does America's war in vietnam decades ago have to do with Chinese European relations?

One last try.

No I said Europe was resisting Eastern influence (both direct and indirect). Primarially the authoritarian drift, but there has been some shift.
I have said before in other conversations that a possible result of Russian meddling primarily is that it does not create countries friendly with Moscow but rightwing governments likely to fight harder.

I never said China wanted to demilitarize Europe. I said and i'll quote it again:

Countries have national interests.
If trade benefits them, they'll trade.
If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb.
What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views.

However now you mention it, I very much think Russia especially don't want Europe to have teeth, and so by association China as well, but to a lesser extent due to geography. Again it seems you are focused on my personal opinion on ideology, when its of much less import.

The only salient point to argue is: Has there been pressure from the east to restructure the nature of western countries.

BRICS as a whole are authoritarian in nature and counter to democratic values yes. They have a mostly rightwing ideology among the member states like Russia or Iran, and moreover, an authoritarian one, with obviously countries who are more center-authoritarian. 

Edited 16 hours ago by BlueOak

[Elliott]

20 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

Okay. And what does America's war in vietnam decades ago have to do with Chinese European relations?

Vietnam War was started by France, America came later. 

 

20 minutes ago, BlueOak said:

One last try.

No I said Europe was resisting Eastern influence (both direct and indirect). Primarially the authoritarian drift, but there has been some shift.
I have said before in other conversations that a possible result of Russian meddling primarily is that it does not create countries friendly with Moscow but rightwing governments likely to fight harder.

I never said China wanted to demilitarize Europe. I said and i'll quote it again:

Countries have national interests.
If trade benefits them, they'll trade.
If bombs benefit them, they'll bomb.
What a country won't do, for example, is assist another country in resisting China taking over its territory as its own. Not unless they had some sort of practical ties and reason to do so. These develop because their ideologies and/or interests align. There is often a natural drift on the meta level of a country (or any large group) toward others who share similiar views.

However now you mention it, I very much think Russia especially don't want Europe to have teeth, and so by association China as well, but to a lesser extent due to geography. Again it seems you are focused on my personal opinion on ideology, when its of much less import.

The only salient point to argue is: Has there been pressure from the east to restructure the nature of western countries.

BRICS as a whole are authoritarian in nature and counter to democratic values yes. They have a mostly rightwing ideology among the member states like Russia or Iran, and moreover, an authoritarian one, with obviously countries who are more center-authoritarian. 

My question was

13 hours ago, Elliott said:

Why would China want Europe to shift Right?

 

 

 

Edited 16 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

On 11/13/2025 at 1:50 AM, Elliott said:

What I mean is look who is driving decisions, it's the consumers, the people. These companies are only maneuvering in ways to satisfy consumers. We don't have people at the mercy of these corporations, the giant ones are strictly discretionary spending markets. We have borderline meat and grain monopolies, and walmart, but these are not hard to overcome.

Your looking at how they got rich (consumer spending) but ignoring what they do when rich (regulatory capture, monopoly consolidation, political influence). Corporations start out through consumers choosing, but then they become something different after accumulating wealth from those choices - to the point they can end up shaping consumer choices through advertising and eliminating alternative ''choices'' through monopolistic consolidation.

Decisions and desires are also engineered through advertising and algorithms. Even back in the Mad Men era - Edward Bernays influenced women to smoke by associating cigarettes with feminism (torches of freedom.) The advertising industry exists to create demand that doesn't exist - and modern day algorithms are that just ratcheted up. We are in cages influencing us at all times and ''inserting'' desires we didn't know we had.

On 11/13/2025 at 1:50 AM, Elliott said:

What you're pointing at has been getting minimized even, not growing. Look back to Carnegie and JP Morgan for heavens sake, look up JP Morgan's bailout of the United States, (the bank bailed the country out).

Lookup Rockefeller and Vanderbilt, Jack Welch,... Rockefeller is why we've been fighting in the middle east for 100 years, why there's an Israel.

That proves my point - private capital became too powerful and could no longer be ''disciplined'' by the market or individual consumer choices ''in the form of the most direct-democracy possible'' as you put it. If they democratically grew these companies via their choices why can't they democratically tackle them? It took state force to do so. That's where anti-trust laws came from (response to Rockerfeller). These same laws are no longer enforced to the degree they should be due to state capture by capital. Symbolic slap on the wrists for some firms occur - but the core organs aren't harmed ie the structural power dynamic.

Lina Khan was obstructed by the structure itself ie structural power.  https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/11/10/lina-khan-former-commissioner-of-ftc-speaks-on-panel-about-divide-in-digital-policy-between-united-states-and-europe/

''Khan said that Congress has been slow to check the power of tech companies while allowing them to hinder the lawmaking process by lobbying.

“Just the endless torrent of money, which has, candidly, influenced both parties, I think has kept things from getting over the finish line” 

Today’s power isn’t smaller but is more systemic and so is less visible - it's financialized into a financial empire which is why it goes unnoticed if we simply look at the surface. It's structural ie financial plumbing and architecture - not cosmetic ie the house which is visible to all of us in the form of store fronts and ''consumer choices''.  This is also why American's saying they have a better living standard than the rest of the world don't understand how - by a financial imperial arrangement maintaining the dollar as reserve currency which offers the US empire it's ''exorbitant privilege''.  It's not solely because of market genius and capitalism - dollar dominance subsidizes American affluence and consumption (customer choices).

JP Morgan became JP Morgan Chase the institution - Rockefeller became Exxon, BlackRock and a web of energy finance conglomerates. Private capital now upholds US hegemony in a symbiotic relationship - which is why they are treated as ''critical'' and beyond being challenged. State and private interest / capital has fused. If capital has global interests then they can subvert national interests.

 It's true Americans buy big cars and like big roads. But its also true that oil companies have been for decades lobbying against public transit also.

On 11/13/2025 at 1:50 AM, Elliott said:

None of these companies have controlling leverage. Palantir is only a data organizing company, by the way.

Leverage isn’t overt control but about structural dependency - it' infrastructural and causes mutual capture or inter-dependency. Palantir doesn’t need to rule anything if it’s embedded in the defense, intelligence, and health data infrastructure the state relies on. Same with big tech and finance. So it's not about individual transactions - commerce, communication, and the state operate on privately owned platforms. It's hard to boycott our way out of monopolized infrastructure any more than we can boycott roads ie platforms.

On 11/13/2025 at 1:50 AM, Elliott said:

Your theory is based on a false premise that Democrats are sold out, with no evidence for it.

When Biden was faced with a standoff between capital vs labor during the rail strike he chose capital : https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-signs-bill-block-us-railroad-strike-2022-12-02/

He later brokered a deal, but that was after pressure and backlash - hence, concessions made - pressure release valve policy. But what was the first instinct? In the service of capital. And why is that rail strikers could pressure to the extent they did? Because they could leverage a critical chokepoint ie infrastructure that the economy and country depends on - the same way these corps have infrastructure / platforms. Biden conceding wasn't about the workers but about keeping the machine running. In this sense I agree with you - we do have power, but it must be en mass, strategic and disruptive to the structure of power.

Sold out doesn't mean briefcases of cash handed under the table. Money is literally in politics - that money influences politics -  politicians depend on a pipeline of funds from their donor class. Lina Khan who Biden appointed (and is now appointed by Zohran) said so herself as I shared earlier. Lobbying isn't charity where no return is expected.

Secularism championed separation of Church and state but somehow we just accept that money has become the new Church and that it shouldn't be separated from politics. Instead it corrupts our politics and cannibalizes society. This is why all empire can do is crudely contain rival nations - because it can't compete against them. It's hard to compete globally when your own elite class is feeding on you locally lol so all that's left is saber rattling. Capital elites don't care for national interest because they are a-national, trans-national. And yet they are fused with the nation state to the point that national interest has become code for capital interest.

That doesn't mean private capital can't work with national interest or be in alignment - it just means they have dual loyalty and that they can hedge against your demise. They are the real parasites that need containing - so that the nation state can remain strong enough to compete rather than need to default to muscle and bullying tactics to try contain those they can't compete with - which only brings out world closer to WW3.

All the videos I shared above explain it all better than I could. Financialization seems like a dense word and kind of abstract but this video is quite clear:

 

Edited 15 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

30 minutes ago, zazen said:

Your looking at how they got rich (consumer spending) but ignoring what they do when rich (regulatory capture, monopoly consolidation, political influence). Corporations start out through consumers choosing, but then they become something different after accumulating wealth from those choices - to the point they can end up shaping consumer choices through advertising and eliminating alternative ''choices'' through monopolistic consolidation.

 

I don't ignore it, I acknowledge it, but you place too much strength behind it. Yes corporations brainwash people to a degree, but they are not literal zombies. Where is there no choice, point to something specific?

I agree about financialization, I only disagree with the extent of the power you think it holds. Look at the tobacco industry's decay.

 

30 minutes ago, zazen said:

. If they democratically grew these companies via their choices why can't they democratically tackle them? 

They can, they only don't because they indeed do serve the people. Point to a specific example where a corporation is not serving the people.

Look at the green movement, the oil lobby is arguably the strongest.

Edited 15 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

@Elliott From AI to explain what I mean by financial architecture and ''plumbing of the system'' being structurally designed in favor of capital.

''The Index Fund Mechanism (Passive Investing)

How it works:

Most Americans don't pick individual stocks. 401(k)s, pensions, IRAs default into index funds. Index funds (S&P 500, total market) are market-cap weighted

This means: the bigger a company already is, the more money automatically flows into it The feedback loop: Company gets big → enters S&P 500

Trillions in passive funds must buy it (they track the index). Stock price goes up (from forced buying, not fundamentals). Market cap increases → gets even more weight in the index. More passive money flows in → stock goes higher. Repeat. 

Nobody chose this individually: Your 401(k) automatically buys Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta. You didn't "vote with your dollars" for Big Tech dominance. The structure of retirement savings mechanically concentrates capital into whatever's already biggest. It's structural, not democratic

The Big Three own everything: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street manage $20+ trillion in passive index funds. They're the largest shareholders in virtually every major corporation. Not because of "consumer choice"—because retirement money flows through them by default.They vote the shares (corporate governance) but it's YOUR money.

You didn't choose to make Apple the most valuable company. Your retirement account did it automatically.The system is designed to concentrate capital into mega-caps. Consumers aren't steering—the index structure is.''

 

 

Another point is Michael Burry (Big Short) who predicted the 2008 crash just closed his fund down because the market is detached from the fundamentals "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets," https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/michael-burry-big-short-fame-deregisters-scion-asset-management-2025-11-13/

In plain english : the ''consumer'' can't affect these stock valuations to the degree they think they can with their consumer choices (to buy or not to buy, to empower or not to empower) because the state backstops and pumps liquidity towards these companies that have fused with the state to the point they are considered ''critical''. Their behemoth size underpins the US dollar empire ie too big to fail. This is why there is a divergence between main street and wall street - why is it that as main street suffers (everyday people being squeezed) - but wall street hits all time highs? Because liquidity - money printer goes brrrr and the regular person goes ahhhh ''cost of living crisis''.

Traditional value investing becomes impossible. Burry can't find mispriced assets because the market isn't pricing anything properly - it's just channeling flows into whatever the index structure and imperial necessity demand to keep the empire afloat. Capital is the empire.

When companies become infrastructure for empire, "consumer choice" becomes completely irrelevant. The state will prop them up regardless of their profitability or fundamentals justifying their valuation. Dollar hegemony requires strong US asset markets which is why i say capital is empire - and it is a financialized one. Michael Hudson is the goat at explaining all of this.

 

[Elliott]

22 minutes ago, zazen said:

@Elliott From AI to explain what I mean by financial architecture and ''plumbing of the system'' being structurally designed in favor of capital.

''The Index Fund Mechanism (Passive Investing)

How it works:

Most Americans don't pick individual stocks. 401(k)s, pensions, IRAs default into index funds. Index funds (S&P 500, total market) are market-cap weighted

This means: the bigger a company already is, the more money automatically flows into it The feedback loop: Company gets big → enters S&P 500

I agree, but, the consumers also benefit from this, it is not a zero sum game.

 

 

Quote

Trillions in passive funds must buy it (they track the index). Stock price goes up (from forced buying, not fundamentals). Market cap increases → gets even more weight in the index. More passive money flows in → stock goes higher. Repeat. 

Nobody chose this individually: Your 401(k) automatically buys Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta. You didn't "vote with your dollars" for Big Tech dominance. The structure of retirement savings mechanically concentrates capital into whatever's already biggest. It's structural, not democratic

The Big Three own everything: BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street manage $20+ trillion in passive index funds. They're the largest shareholders in virtually every major corporation. Not because of "consumer choice"—because retirement money flows through them by default.They vote the shares (corporate governance) but it's YOUR money.

You didn't choose to make Apple the most valuable company. Your retirement account did it automatically.The system is designed to concentrate capital into mega-caps. Consumers aren't steering—the index structure is.''

 

 

Another point is Michael Burry (Big Short) who predicted the 2008 crash just closed his fund down because the market is detached from the fundamentals "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets," https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/michael-burry-big-short-fame-deregisters-scion-asset-management-2025-11-13/

In plain english : the ''consumer'' can't affect these stock valuations to the degree they think they can with their consumer choices (to buy or not to buy, to empower or not to empower) because the state backstops and pumps liquidity towards these companies that have fused with the state to the point they are considered ''critical''. Their behemoth size underpins the US dollar empire ie too big to fail. This is why there is a divergence between main street and wall street - why is it that as main street suffers (everyday people being squeezed) - but wall street hits all time highs? Because liquidity - money printer goes brrrr and the regular person goes ahhhh ''cost of living crisis''.

Traditional value investing becomes impossible. Burry can't find mispriced assets because the market isn't pricing anything properly - it's just channeling flows into whatever the index structure and imperial necessity demand to keep the empire afloat. Capital is the empire.

When companies become infrastructure for empire, "consumer choice" becomes completely irrelevant. The state will prop them up regardless of their profitability or fundamentals justifying their valuation. Dollar hegemony requires strong US asset markets which is why i say capital is empire - and it is a financialized one. Michael Hudson is the goat at explaining all of this.

 

You're still assuming my position is libertetian, Austrian economics, I said it isn't. I do not mean "vote with your wallet". I mean people, everyone, DO vote with their wallet. I believe in regulation, not austrian economics.

I think you pointing to specific examples and companies would help me show my viewpoint. Where are there no choices, where are companies violating the populace at large?

Edited 14 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Yes corporations brainwash people to a degree, but they are not literal zombies. Where is there no choice, point to something specific?

Your missing the forest for the tree's. No ones saying people are zombies with no agency or they don't have choices - it's that their agency is limited within structural constraints by a few key players who you think ''serve people'' over themselves. Over the decades living standards have gone down and the middle class has been hollowed out due to the point we now have populism on the right and the left emerging - if the system and status quo served the people we wouldn't have wide spread discontent.

Tobacco was a pure vice good - it isn't a utility, infrastructure or essential the way housing or healthcare are. You can quit smoking and suffer no functional loss in your ability to participate in society - try cutting out the major tech giants from your life. Tobacoo didn't just fall due to the market - although pressure was applied from there. The state clamped down via lawsuits, taxes and advertising bans.

Tobacco is dispensable in a way a lot of these modern giants aren't which are fused with the state. Your focusing on small fish. BlackRock is the backbone of the retirement system - the system will defend its vital organs in a way it never defended tobacco.

2 hours ago, Elliott said:

Point to a specific example where a corporation is not serving the people.

Corporations have a fiduciary duty to serve private shareholder value - not people. People are served as as secondary order effect, but not as a primary motive. If a corporation can cut costs, hike prices and lobby for regulations that favor it at the expense of the consumer - they will. This is legally mandated - this is what I mean by the system being structurally rigged in favor of capital.

I also already pointed out 2008. People lost out, the big guys didn't and still go their bonuses. It's not capitalism or socialism - its capital socializing its losses and privatizing its gains - despite whatever we want to call it, its parasitic and extractive. Housing, healthcare, food and education - essentials wielded by a handful of corporations, who's directive is to maximize shareholder value, and not the value it provides to the customer.

We can point to the illusion of choice in non-essential goods to ignore the tyranny of a lack of or limited choice in essentials we can't opt out of. If people had the choice they would opt out of crushing student debt to educate themselves, mortgages to house themselves which blow up in their face as in 2008, and not be medical emergency away from bankruptcy.

[Elliott]

 

Quote

Over the decades living standards have gone down and the middle class has been hollowed out due to the point we now have populism on the right and the left emerging - if the system and status quo served the people we wouldn't have wide spread discontent.

Name 1 living standard that has gone down over 20 years or more("decades")

You can't name one.

 

Quote

I also already pointed out 2008. People lost out, the big guys didn't and still go their bonuses.

That's your example of harm to the populace, you think this is a good example? You don't have a specific industry or company?

Quote

Your missing the forest for the tree's. No ones saying people are zombies with no agency or they don't have choices -

 

Edited 12 hours ago by Elliott

[zazen]

4 hours ago, Elliott said:

 

Name 1 living standard that has gone down over 20 years or more("decades")

You can't name one.

 

That's your example of harm to the populace, you think this is a good example? You don't have a specific industry or company?

 

Didn’t know I had to spell out everything man common.  What’s your definition of harm? 8-10million lost their homes, families thrown onto the street, lie savings evaporated. The knock on effects of all that - suicides, divorces, kids pulled out of school etc etc. Entire generation’s wealth vaporized - trillions of € gone.

But that’s a bad example of harm cos no one got shot? That’s the same surface level eyeballs saying Dems aren’t bought off - cos you think it must mean they have to have briefcases of cash snuck to them under the table lol cartoonish.

You want a name and a boogeyman to make it easy. Goldman Sachs helped create toxic mortgages, sold them to pension funds, bet against them, made billions when people lost homes - then got bailed out.

Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alumni staffed the same administration that was supposed to regulate them, right after the crash they helped cause. Nice game of revolving door.

Affordability has decreased and is squeezing everyone on the fundamentals - housing, healthcare and education have increased multiples more than wages. My parents generation could afford a home on a single income, today’s generations can’t barely on two without a mortgage - etymology is mort-mortality (death) gage (pledge). Death pledge maxxing.

Housing - vulture funds buy entire neighbourhoods, jack up rents, outbid families, convert homes into permanent rental stock, reduce homeownership into a financial asset ie financialization. Blackrock, Blackstone etc.

Healthcare - medical bankruptcies, $100k+ cancer treatments, insulin price gouging (€12 in Canada vs €98 in US). UnitedHealth made $22 billion in profit last year while denying claims left and right.

Education - from AI “Sallie Mae lobbied to make student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (making it inescapable), aggressively pushed private high-interest loans on students, lobbied for higher federal lending limits while funding groups that advocated for tuition increases, and securitized the debt into Wall Street financial products—creating a self-reinforcing system where schools could charge infinite amounts because students could borrow infinite amounts with loans they could never escape, while Sallie Mae faced zero risk and extracted maximum profit through interest payments that lasted decades.“

Read the following: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

But don’t worry - people got Instagram, lots of ice cream flavours and like a gazzilion porn vids at their disposal - “consumer choices”.

Edited 8 hours ago by zazen

[Elliott]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

Didn’t know I had to spell out everything man common.  What’s your definition of harm? 8-10million lost their homes, families thrown onto the street, lie savings evaporated. The knock on effects of all that - suicides, divorces, kids pulled out of school etc etc. Entire generation’s wealth vaporized - trillions of € gone.

But that’s a bad example of harm cos no one got shot? That’s the same surface level eyeballs saying Dems aren’t bought off - cos you think it must mean they have to have briefcases of cash snuck to them under the table lol cartoonish.

You want a name and a boogeyman to make it easy. Goldman Sachs helped create toxic mortgages, sold them to pension funds, bet against them, made billions when people lost homes - then got bailed out.

Goldman Sachs and Citigroup alumni staffed the same administration that was supposed to regulate them, right after the crash they helped cause. Nice game of revolving door.

So Goldman Sachs/the systen, harmed people, by giving people loans for homes they otherwise wouldn't have been able to get?

 

 

Quote

Affordability has decreased and is squeezing everyone on the fundamentals - housing, healthcare and education have increased multiples more than wages. My parents generation could afford a home on a single income, today’s generations can’t barely on two without a mortgage - etymology is mort-mortality (death) gage (pledge). Death pledge maxxing.

Housing - vulture funds buy entire neighbourhoods, jack up rents, outbid families, convert homes into permanent rental stock, reduce homeownership into a financial asset ie financialization. Blackrock, Blackstone etc.

Healthcare - medical bankruptcies, $100k+ cancer treatments, insulin price gouging (€12 in Canada vs €98 in US). UnitedHealth made $22 billion in profit last year while denying claims left and right.

Education - from AI “Sallie Mae lobbied to make student debt non-dischargeable in bankruptcy (making it inescapable), aggressively pushed private high-interest loans on students, lobbied for higher federal lending limits while funding groups that advocated for tuition increases, and securitized the debt into Wall Street financial products—creating a self-reinforcing system where schools could charge infinite amounts because students could borrow infinite amounts with loans they could never escape, while Sallie Mae faced zero risk and extracted maximum profit through interest payments that lasted decades.“

Read the following: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

But don’t worry - people got Instagram, lots of ice cream flavours and like a gazzilion porn vids at their disposal - “consumer choices”.

 

Those are lopsided mischaracterizations.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Elliott