Generally these kinds of private monopolies also have public-set prices.
Which is a huge disaster for expensive things (like your power bill), but is much less of one for a token that takes 50 cents of human labour and 0.5 cents of computing to produce.
Nobody's forcing US pharama companies to sell to those countries at those prices, they choose to, because it makes them more money.
Foreigners aren't the reason American healthcare sucks. Stop looking for people to blame abroad, all the sources of your problems are in the presidency, congress, and in the boardroom that directs the former.
It's possible that Americans are all about free markets (I have severe doubts on this point, but let's accept it), but Trump and his MAGAts are far more concerned about fucking with people weaker than them.
If given two options, they will take the one that will hurt more people, every day of the week.
Any serious shareholder with a significant investment in it is surely aware that it's an overvalued meme stock that will continue to print money as long as the reality distortion field is maintained.
They'd be utter idiots if they weren't. (And if they are utter idiots, you shouldn't expect them to behave rationally.)
This is exactly it: they're making a perfectly rational decision keeping Musk on the way he is, because the alternative once he's out is the stock crashes due to the uncertainty and the fanboys bailing.
Why have less money when you actually don't care what happens if you have more money? So long as the stock retains its value, you can do things like borrow against your holdings, leverage that into other investments etc.
Stock valuations are not a democracy of public opinion, they are the product of investors putting their money into the stock.
Musk is a shit human, but to an investor, everything he touches turns to gold. Whether his companies make anything useful doesn't matter, what matters is that the stock price in his companies goes up, so people give him more money. This works until it doesn't.
I’m pretty sure no-one has argued that a gold standard would prevent economic disasters. That sounds like a straw man. My understanding is that there would be more of them but the individual and cumulative impact would be far less. You can still have fractional reserve banking with the gold standard so the gold standard alone is not sufficient to prevent that.
> I’m pretty sure no-one has argued that a gold standard would prevent economic disasters. That sounds like a straw man. My understanding is that there would be more of them but the individual and cumulative impact would be far less.
Contrary to popular opinion, the historical record shows that gold does not actually bring price stability; see "Why the Gold Standard Is the World's Worst Economic Idea, in 2 Charts":
Before what we call "The Great Depression" (of the 1930s), that label was applied to another years-long economic malaise, which was in part caused by using gold-backed currency (as was the 1930s Great Depression):
Many things work just fine right until they stop working, our current strategy of blowing ever bigger economic bubbles has worked for a long time and I expect it will continue for long time. It has the very stable property of enriching the already wealthy.
But it will not last forever and I do expect to see the end of it within my lifetime. It is this calamity that I'm interested in diminishing and it is on this basis that I think a weaker federal reserve would be less damaging. Since the federal reserve obscures the true state of the economy uncovering the true state will coincide with a weakling of the federal reserve and will appear causal.
I'm not a gold bug, I don't own any of it, I do own some bitcoin but my main asset is my software company.
> Many things work just fine right until they stop working, our current strategy of blowing ever bigger economic bubbles has worked for a long time and I expect it will continue for long time. It has the very stable property of enriching the already wealthy.
The enriching of the already-wealthy is happening because of non-progressive policies (taxes, and others). Plenty of countries have fiat currencies and independent central banks, and yet don't have inequality rates like that of US currently has.
In fact, the US used to not have inequality rates that the US currently has. This is a phenomenon that has a fairly definitive starting point, with particular policies that (US) society has "accepted" and can 'simply' choose to start rejecting:
The US is a completely different country compared to what it was 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago, and economic policy is not the only thing that has changed.
It appears that you see ‘progressive solutions’ as an answer which I would expect to arrive in the form of tax normalization which alongside monetary inflation constitutes the much coveted wealth tax. I am in disagreement with progressives that this would result in a decrease of inequality, for one the state will be completely reliant on the wealth of the wealthy increasing, as opposed to the income of the middle class increasing. I see inflation as a regressive tax, the poor will pay a higher percentage in tax but a lower in relative terms due to the increase in inequality caused.
> I am in disagreement with progressives that this would result in a decrease of inequality, for one the state will be completely reliant on the wealth of the wealthy increasing, as opposed to the income of the middle class increasing.
Funnelling more money from the top tax brackets to social programs like childcare, better teacher salaries (to attract better talent), lower tuition for (community) colleges and (public/state) universities would be helpful to the lower deciles of the population IMHO.
> I see inflation as a regressive tax, the poor will pay a higher percentage in tax but a lower in relative terms due to the increase in inequality caused.
Look at the history of the gold standard and deflation (which often happens under gold regimes): it was poorer folks that were mostly against it. Inflation helps those with debt (like mortgages, student/car loans), which I would think is more helpful to lower income folks. Deflation helps creditors.
It hurts those with debts more, they have to pay a higher interest rate than the wealthy and with things being more expensive they have to borrow more. Wages don’t keep up with inflation.
The problem with large redistribution initiatives is that they invite corruption. When such initiatives can be reliably delivered without corruption then maybe I could have some faith in it. I’m to see how all these Somali ‘learning’ daycare centers shake out. Prima facie it looks rather fraudulent. I fail to see how giving more money to fraudsters will help matters.
Price stability is overrated. Prices must change according to scarcity. Letting the government print money any time prices start to fall is literally letting the government profit off your back. It makes accounting easier, but it destroys market information like "Supply of goods is catching up to demand, find something better to produce".
And the money supply that is created by government(-ish) institutions is by central banks, which—in modern times—are generally operated independently from the government (except in, e.g., Turkey; and some folks want less independence). Central banks often work in opposition to what politicians want: just ask Powell.
You are preaching to the choir, for the most part. People just got brainwashed into expecting prices to be "stable" but what is really happening is the price of money is being manipulated for various reasons.
Credit is a very thorny issue. Politicians and banks have promised people impossibly good and contradictory outcomes.
>And the money supply that is created by government(-ish) institutions is by central banks, which—in modern times—are generally operated independently from the government
In all cases the independence is an illusion. Conflicts over policy are manufactured to make the government appear more frugal than it is. Every fiat currency ever has gone to zero.
Half the country violently doesn't want you here, and you should oblige them by taking your money and attention elsewhere. There are plenty of more deserving locations.
Which is a huge disaster for expensive things (like your power bill), but is much less of one for a token that takes 50 cents of human labour and 0.5 cents of computing to produce.
reply