Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1038416)	11/13/2017 7:17:46 AM
From: SeachRE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576180

BC, A chart is useful but it fails to tell you what actually happened. Both rich and poor took it on the chen, no doubt. Even when both lose 90% of their holdings, the rich always have the advantage because they still have loads of money, and will benefit the most on any eventual recovery. Meanwhile, the poor will still have to pay their monthly bills that represent much of what they have left...

To: Broken_Clock who wrote (1038416)	11/13/2017 9:40:49 AM
From: Rarebird	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576180

Whenever the stock market is going to rise substantially, the richest of Americans will benefit the most and income inequality will rise. In bear markets, the richest of Americans will lose the most and income inequality will contract. Now, it's true, that the richest of Americans can well afford to lose some of their money temporarily until the next bull resurfaces while many middle class families cannot afford to weather a bear market storm. But much of that is due to poor financial planning and failure to take risk into account. In a capitalist society, just about every candidate will be somewhat friendly (in different degrees) to the financial system, the life blood of capitalism. The argument supporting the Obama bailout of the banks was that if he did not do it, the whole financial system would have collapsed and likely the framework upon which it was based. Before you destroy, you must have another framework in place to take over or otherwise what ensues is pure chaos. None of these parties has another framework in place. I don't think that Bernie Sanders has another framework in place either. Do you think Sanders would have let the financial system collapse? After the Lehman collapse, there was a choice to either affirm the capitalist system with some regulations put in place or put in place a new system which no one had even thought about or prepared for. Outside of a true left wing candidate, I can't think of one person in power who would have done things differently. The people in power are very limited in scope.