The Stock Market Feeds the Racial Inequality It’s Free to Ignore

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | The Stock Market Feeds the Racial Inequality It’s Free to Ignore

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • Author
    • #328934
      • Total Posts: 2,139

      Over the past few weeks, as outraged crowds marched through the streets of America to demand an end to systemic racism, the country’s stock investors were busy bidding up the market at a dizzying clip.

      At its height, with curfews enacted and videos of protesters clashing with police all over social media and President Donald Trump threatening to send in troops, the froth in markets became so extreme that, when observed on a three-month basis, every single company in the S&P 500 had swung into positive territory. It was a breathtaking display of indiscriminate buoyancy with no precedent in recent times.

      Now, a rally at this precise moment in time may make perfect sense to market veterans steeped in the arcane ways of Wall Street, but for the uninitiated who are observing the mania from afar, it came off as more than a little jarring. Do investors not care about what’s going on in the streets? Do they think none of this will ever affect them?

      Next to any answer to that question is a harsh truth — that stock investing, with the power of compounding wealth that it spits out over the years, is dominated by the affluent, and in America that overwhelmingly means White people. Not only does this divide foster the inequality that serves as a root cause of the uprisings, but it also makes it easier for the investor class to ignore the tumult caused by the killing of George Floyd.

    • #328971
      Cold Mountain Trail
      • Total Posts: 8,815

      “In the last decade we talked about the ‘one percent’ as a wealth group in society,” but the conversation often didn’t clarify the group consisted of wealthy White households, Palladino said in a phone interview. “And that’s a really important indicator of what’s going on in American politics today.”

      It is?  It’s more important that the 1% are 99% white?  So if the 1% were a nice mix of colors it would be OK that they owned the rest of us & that their gigantic increases in wealth (& our corresponding increases in poverty) also OK?

      Another article where the 1% try to turn a class issue into a racial one to disguise their control over the rest of us.

      • #329024
        game meat
        • Total Posts: 1,241

        Yes. They know perfectly well that if social problems were presented as universal working class problems then people may start treating them as such. And what then?

        The msm’s selective reporting has been wildly successful at using whiteness as a proxy for the ruling class which is a tactic designed to shift blame from the few to the collective.

        Of course, this means that people of color are then used as a proxy for the lower classes. This is accomplished by putting all of the focus on racial disparities while ignoring all the other data entirely, portraying race as the one and only causal factor.

        Every big lie starts from a small truth.

        It’s a simple trick used over and over again, but it’s been very effective at keeping people laser focused on the trees while ignoring the forest. Currently, this is the dominant viewpoint of most of the left of all stripes and it isn’t even close. Meh, it is what it is, I guess.

    • #328998
      • Total Posts: 899

      Sorry, BLM is far more concerned about removing statues than they are about the racism in the stock market.

    • #329009
      • Total Posts: 848

      46 million Americans suddenly have no income.

      And the stock market is worth more now then when we had 46 million more people working? Does anyone believe the stock market reflects anything more than a bunch of filthy rich capitalist betting on each other.

      The only reason the market is higher is because our federal government is buying up all the corporate and bank debt. And then, using our tax dollars, they are giving banks and corporations grants to keep them open.

      If the federal government were to buy up your debt and then give you a grant to pay your bills, you would be doing just fine too. Your house value would not have suddenly sunk, your interest on saving would not be zero. Prices would be dropping and you could afford some new things. Your bills would be paid too, just like the people living in castles, and you wouldn’t have any need to go out and spread the virus in order to keep this failure of an economy afloat. If the federal government would have just cut our taxes and given us subsidies, we would not have 46 million unemployed at a 30% unemployment rate no matter how the BLS manipulates the statistics.

      Capitalism has crashed, it’s gone, it’s failed completely and we are now in the age of of redistribution of assets from the poor and middle class to the filthy rich

      (I paid enough in taxes this year to pay someone a half decent annual salary….and it all went into Bill Gate’s pockets.)

      We are no longer a capitalist economy. We are a redistributive economy for the filthy rich.

      I really don’t know what to call that kind of economy. It’s very similar to older versions of feudalism but without all the stupid rituals and religious trappings. It’s technically not slavery. It’s not a traditional market economy. It is certainly Not socialism or communism that at least attempts to distribute wealth down. It’s not quite a dictatorship….yet. Dictatorships have weird market manipulations because… you know a dictator can act on any whim. But now I’m getting into political organization descriptors like democracy or facism.

      Anyone else know what to call this economy? It certainly isn’t capitalism.

Viewing 3 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.