Is the Financial Sector parasitical?
invite response
2013 Aug 26, 2:47am 10,675 views 46 comments
by CL ➕follow (1) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
rootvg
2013 Aug 31, 10:16pm
Cheap credit is parasitical.
In other words, if you are rich, you should have to take your assets and make bets on buying companies, goods, or capital improvements.
However, it doesn't work that way.
If you are rich, you have earned the privilege of borrowing super cheap money to grow your portfolio.
That is wrong on a number of different levels.
I've argued for some time that one of our problems as a nation has been cheap money for too long.
There is another recession coming, bad one. Why? We're getting a few Fed chairman who will be no doubt forced to begin taking away the punch bowl. There is simply no way around it.
« First « Previous Comments 46 - 46 of 46 Search these comments
I've seen a lot of folks here denounce the financial sector as parasitical, but as I played the scenario out in my head I began to think I might not fully understand why. I can see why if the income and wealth is poorly distributed (and the financial sector already had too much of our capital) that giving them more would cause even more of an imbalance and hurt consumption by the lion's share of the population. In that example, they are secondary to the pre-existing inequality though.
But in normal capitalism how does it hurt, if the system funds purchases, takes a cut for the investment, then spends the investment on anything? Is it that their share of the profits is just too large? Or is it always a negative?
Thanks