Propping up the stock market to fuel consumer spending is extremely regressive. The top 10-20% make up ~50% of consumer spending. [1] Effectively you're giving the wealthy a risk-free bet with huge payoff if it succeeds. If that bet succeeds it consequentially means a ton of job displacement which will mostly affect the other 90%.
I didn't advocate for propping up the stock market. I only disputed OP's assertion that a tech selloff wouldn't be so bad and wouldn't affect much else. This is what they said
> A crash in tech stocks will just cause investors to lose some wealth. Nobody depends on AI for core operations. Not yet at least.
which government lever can increase the wealth of the lower 80% of income earners in the way you want? the problem with the kind of progressive taxation to fuel "wealth redistribution" (really, job programs) you're imagining is that government spending is inefficient - do we want to pay the prices it costs to convince people to do backbreaking work building ghost cities and bridges to nowhere, it's not like in China where everything is driven by fakery and coercion. compare that to the seemingly unlimited cushy office bullshit jobs that bloat in the private sector creates.
Just because I am anti-propping-up-the-stock-market does not mean I am a communist. I am a liberal who believes in capital markets.
For the 10%, the stock market crashing just means cutting back on primarily discretionary spend - think no new car and maybe not buying the family new iPhones every year - they're not in any danger of going hungry, especially if they have any sense.
There are plenty of arguments to be made for infrastructure projects, for example, why not build out more power generation and transmission?
i don't mean to engage in this rhetoric where you have to worry about being flamed. i'm just asking you to sincerely answer the question and not worry about how it looks.
for example one big lever is student loan debt relief. another is mortgage and auto loans relief. another is reducing the exclusivity period for pharmaceutical patents. so these are taxes in only the metaphorical sense - you get worse medicine with shorter exclusivity periods - but maybe people like that trade?
> the stock market crashing just means cutting back on primarily discretionary spend - think no new car and maybe not buying the family new iPhones every year - they're not in any danger of going hungry, especially if they have any sense.
this is a very paul krugman hand wavey POV. without a doubt, it would be a catastrophe.
> Just because I am anti-propping-up-the-stock-market does not mean I am a communist.
I don't quite understand this - isn't propping up the stock market via bail-outs more of a communist approach? Using communal tax revenues to keep failing businesses afloat seems far more communist than capitalist. The capitalist approach should really be to let failing companies fail.
Propping up the stock market to fuel consumer spending is extremely regressive. The top 10-20% make up ~50% of consumer spending. [1] Effectively you're giving the wealthy a risk-free bet with huge payoff if it succeeds. If that bet succeeds it consequentially means a ton of job displacement which will mostly affect the other 90%.
1. https://www.wsj.com/economy/consumers/us-economy-strength-ri...
I didn't advocate for propping up the stock market. I only disputed OP's assertion that a tech selloff wouldn't be so bad and wouldn't affect much else. This is what they said
> A crash in tech stocks will just cause investors to lose some wealth. Nobody depends on AI for core operations. Not yet at least.
which government lever can increase the wealth of the lower 80% of income earners in the way you want? the problem with the kind of progressive taxation to fuel "wealth redistribution" (really, job programs) you're imagining is that government spending is inefficient - do we want to pay the prices it costs to convince people to do backbreaking work building ghost cities and bridges to nowhere, it's not like in China where everything is driven by fakery and coercion. compare that to the seemingly unlimited cushy office bullshit jobs that bloat in the private sector creates.
Just because I am anti-propping-up-the-stock-market does not mean I am a communist. I am a liberal who believes in capital markets.
For the 10%, the stock market crashing just means cutting back on primarily discretionary spend - think no new car and maybe not buying the family new iPhones every year - they're not in any danger of going hungry, especially if they have any sense.
There are plenty of arguments to be made for infrastructure projects, for example, why not build out more power generation and transmission?
i don't mean to engage in this rhetoric where you have to worry about being flamed. i'm just asking you to sincerely answer the question and not worry about how it looks.
for example one big lever is student loan debt relief. another is mortgage and auto loans relief. another is reducing the exclusivity period for pharmaceutical patents. so these are taxes in only the metaphorical sense - you get worse medicine with shorter exclusivity periods - but maybe people like that trade?
> the stock market crashing just means cutting back on primarily discretionary spend - think no new car and maybe not buying the family new iPhones every year - they're not in any danger of going hungry, especially if they have any sense.
this is a very paul krugman hand wavey POV. without a doubt, it would be a catastrophe.
> Just because I am anti-propping-up-the-stock-market does not mean I am a communist.
I don't quite understand this - isn't propping up the stock market via bail-outs more of a communist approach? Using communal tax revenues to keep failing businesses afloat seems far more communist than capitalist. The capitalist approach should really be to let failing companies fail.
> Consumer spending is being held up by stock market gains
Wait, really? Is this just a vibes thing, or have you seen data supporting that? It _seems_ fairly unlikely.
The top 10% by wealth are responsible for 50% of consumer spending in the US. In 2020 it was only 43%.
They also own 87% of the stock market.
It's not a big logical leap.
Most of those gain are tech because of the bubble.
The rest of the economy is being asphyxiated due to lack of investment, and wouldn't be so anemic without the AI bubble.