Can you ever go wrong investing on Corporations in the stock market? or at least investing in two rival corps. so you win a bit if the other loses but anyways.
JUSTIFY to me why the "too big to fail" fact doesnt apply to wealthy men investing in corporation's stocks. I'll argue back but I want to see this query answered.
your question is too vague to yield a meaningful answer
It is not, but I shall comform to those of lower Autism Level:
Is , (or is not) the "capitalist system" designed so as to allow the (rightfully,I have to add) wealthy to invest in rightfully world-owning corporations without ever being at risk of losing?
Yes. Millionaires can lose everything (see: the broker is coming to take your house) in seconds by being a silly fuck. This varies wildly depending on the scenario. Well then you've just equaled out. But they aren't exactly tied to each other anyway. For what purpose? Why would I want to do that? You don't become wealthy (I assume we're talking multibillionaire) by being a dipshit and making terrible stock market decisions. Soros and Buffett are legitimately talented at stocks.
HA! leftypol accepts actual meritocracy is why the rich are rich.
Why don't you go and mine those bitcoins, too?
Stop pretending you know what you're talking about friendo.
:') the only country? LET "them" comer there then!!
You don't become wealthy with stocks alone either. Most of those people also own a huge amount of property to profit from.
Yes, but then you're stuck with the poxy
Whenever stocks or investing comes up, it's painfully clear no one has any idea what they are talking about. Holla Forums really needs to read some books on how the stock market functions I recommend starting with A Random Walk down Wall Street
What you said is irrelevant to the praise of capitalistic meritocracy.
I think I'm the only person on leftypol that does, when Holla Forums comes over and pretends to be porky I've blown them out a few times. It's honestly not that important unless you intend to start trading.
The stock market is honestly one of the fairer parts of capitalism, it's the part every social Darwinist wishes the rest was.
Except for the part where one trader is born with enough money to not get stuck under $10k, which is the pit of struggle where the majority of people are.
That is fairness. His family worked hard. He is entitled to inherit that.
Well now we've moved on from meritocracy to what you consider fair.
HAVE we? A couple and the child share blood,DNA..the men even sacrifices ejeculating sperm to create the baby. Are they not almost the same being?
terrible meme, the right wing simply cannot meme
I'd argue not at all, but we're getting very sidetracked here. Even at the $10K mark it can be very easy to lose it all, it's being born with millions when you have to be a real fucking moron to lose it all, and that's by doing stupid things for easy money and risking everything doing so, basically the dumbest form of greed. It's both easy and hard to be such an idiot, only an idiot could do it effortlessly.
like a bizzaro hitler
Yeah because that's me.
WEAK UGLY DUMBASS LIBERTINE POWER
nice moralism, faggot
How can it really be called that when the conditions haven't been fair in the first place? A starving african child isn't going to have the same access to resources as the son of a wealthy banker, since the banker's son was endowed with money and education from the get go, this isn't meritocractic because it doesn't give the other child the equal access, and in fact if it did, could show the african is better than the rich kid. So no, it's not a meritocracy.
Besides even if it was, this isn't a moral argument we're making. We're dismantling capitalism not because it wasn't fair from the start, but because it's a system of exploitation that hurts more people than it helps, "for every rich man there must be 500 poor" (Adam Smith), we are working in our class interest, and it doesn't interest me or the people I care about to suck and die so some richfag can exploit me to earn billions and then waste it on hookers and blow.