/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11900041
>not science or math

>>11900041
You give money to businesses who need it, in hopes they will grow and you make money. It's a win-win. It's symbiotic if anything, certainly not parasitic.

>>11900046
The acts of individual agents working in their self interest may be potentially mutually beneficial, but the ultimate effect this has of pushing a hugely disproportionate portion of wealth to high risk takers and their family and acquaintances, creating a society the makeup of which reflects this effects this result of opportunistic chance, is not necessarily a good thing and can be justifiably changed.

but what can we do about it?

>>11900055
>a whole paragraph of nothing
Risks *may* lead to rewards.
The stock market has lifted more people from poverty than the lottery, sports, etc
The stock market has helped more small businesses than government loans, shark tank, etc
The stock market is the most efficient resource allocator we know of
>disproportionate wealth
Not everyone deserves to be as rich as they are. Not everyone deserves to be as poor as they are. But who are you to judge? Certainly not everyone deserves the same amount of money, that's just a waste. People who grew their money will have more than those who spend it. Sounds fair to me.

there's a distinction to be made between primary investing as a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship, and secondary trading on the stock market.

There's a place for one, the other is just state sponsored gambling, where a few people can bend, manipulate, and break the rules, profiting massively from other's inability to do so. All this at little to no benefit to the company which is being traded.

All this is on top of the risk to people's livelihoods, those who work at companies which are suddenly devalued on a whim, plus mismanaged mortgages and pension funds.

>>>/biz/

you're not wrong it's a big jewish ponzi scam

>>11900044
>>11900108
/biz/ would be an extremely biased group for a discussion, where hopefully /sci/ are a little more analytical/can actually engage in debate

Connecting companies with investment capital is certainly beneficial for the economy.

>>11900127

Most of that money goes into the pockets of billionaires who don't pay taxes. If they ever use it to buy things it's usually real estate or other companies so they have a bigger monopoly.

It's a ponzi scheme: the founders take the big part, the investors take small parts, and so on until the whole scheme crashes because it was overvalued by banks who were in on the whole thing from the start.

Now that the indians and chinese have started to play the stock game it has become even more obvious and you see lots of stocks having crazy spikes. They're not as god as the jews as manipulating the prices to make it look "natural".

>>11900041
Is this what commies actually believe in? Or this is underage b&? Or both?

>>11900150
>Most of that money goes into the pockets of billionaires who don't pay taxes

No.

https://taxfoundation.org/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2018-update/

The 1% pays more taxes than you do, and you’re just a fucking delusional underage communist moron. And not everyone wants to be a millionaire, most of us just want to be debt free with our needs met and a nice 401k. The millionaire status is just a plus.

>>11900160
>The 1% pays more taxes than you do
lmao

>>11900186
>he doesn't know

>>11900186
Nice source

Ahhh it’s you from yesterday

>>11900186
>but muh feelings!!!
k faget bye

>>11900041
I used to think this way, then I learned how to trade and how to fleece the working man out of their hard earned retirement and savings.

Unironically

>>11900201
You only guided the working man to lose those, not forced him.

Imagine a world without investment bankers. Do you see any difference for your own life? Yeah, me neither.

>>11900201
How?

>>11900186
>underage

>>11900160
>The 1% pays more taxes than you do
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/072815/what-marginal-utility-income.asp

To that other anon.

Investment bankers are middle men that connect businesses, govts, and other orgs that need financing with investors and funds. They advise and support organisations to raise capital whether in equity/debt capital markets, or through IPO (initial public offering) whereby equity or ownership of a company is sold publicly to raise capital for the firm to then invest in itself. Without investment bankers firms and orgs would struggle to raise capital investment efficiently.

M&A sell-side which is the holy grail of IBD has the highest margins. Bank will always get sale commission unlike buyside, because many buyers one seller, and even if the bank gets 1% commission that is many millions of dollars for the bank. So IBD M&A guys get so much because their client who has just been aquired is a multibillion dollar company...

In other words, IBD is just an advisory dept that helps businesses connect with funds.. They're not illuminati power brokers at all. The CEOs of businesses have far more power in the world and on govts than IBD MDs...

>>11900041
>prove me wrong thread
>OP completely BTFO'd in the first 5 replies
Another day on /sci/

>>11900366
The problem, as always with bankers, is that when things go tits up they get public bailouts. Private banks make big money, get public money when they fuck up.

Bank stopped being a legitimate business the moment they got the license to print money.

>>11900422
Then that's not a problem with the profession, but with the government for letting them get away with that. Historically, in societies that weren't run by men who wore Tiny Hats, such things as being a banker and fucking up got you punished very severely.

>>11900408
in the most literal sense - can you read?

>>11900456
The second post demonstrates why OP is wrong, as does the fthird(albeit unintentionally), and the fifth. The first shows OP as the faggot he is, and the fourth points out the futility of OP's ideology as the end result requires fixing "inequalities" in subatomic particles and fundamental concepts like position and rotation.

So yes, OP was BTFO'd within the first five posts.

>>11900466
dude you could have just typed no

>>11900041

>>11900512
it's worse than that

>>11900512
>>11900704

>Muh inequality
What matters first and foremost is poverty. Who are you to say someone doesn't deserve the wealth they have when they made it on their own with people working for them under the conditions they agreed with? People give them money because they offer something they want. If society thinks X corporation being too big is a problem, they would stop purchasing from them and would instead switch to the competition.
This kind of mindset is based on jealousy and resentment and leads to socialism, where inequality is almost non existent but everyone is poor.

>>11900765
> made it on their own with people working for them

did you just.....

> they would stop purchasing from them

ah yes this is exactly how it works

>socialism, where inequality is almost non existent but everyone is poor

yank detected

>>11900704
Why should wages be higher if the increase in productivity/value actually comes from machines.

>>11900765
>billionaires deserve to be billionaires
not really true. high wealth is luck
https://sci-hub.se/10.1142/S0219525918500145

theres a point where its not 'effort' accumulating wealth (the difference between a warehouse worker and a chemical engineer), but just a snowball effect of being able to buy up any competition (Google bought youtube because its own video service was bad in comparison). Was google the first search engine? No. Were they the best? Maybe, but they could equally squash improvements by just buying up competition. Do they deserve billions for occupying a market that already existed and (not dramatically) improving a service. Would the world be dramatically different if google didn't exist. Probably not, someone would have come in and done the same thing- maybe the result would be better or worse. You have to view large income as a deterministic effect of taking over a market- not constantly expounding huge effort.

Same argument can be made for amazon. Bezos deserves to be a billionaire because of a sleek website he made in the 90's? Deterministically that is what the defense is. But Bezos did not invent the online retail/ warehouse/ supply chain system. He deserves to be the richest person in the company sure, but billionaire? Would online retail not exist without bezos?

Income inequality is natural. Outsized wealth is not. Outsized wealth has dangerous political and social implications: lobbying, censorship, preventing innovation. An amount of 'power' that is disproportionate to the effort they put in to actually make the business.

Billionaires take over emergent markets, without inventing anything, without creating the market. They should be humble with there wealth, but are not, they pretend they are made of gold, brilliant, untouchable.

>>11900803
because, if anything, automation would preferentially reduce the number of low paying jobs available, driving the average wage up.

as far as i know we don't have human-level medic, engineer, software developer machines?

>>11900817
But you don't need as many. Without computers you would need a whole team of engineers properly design something band then double and triple check to see if all the math was cool. Now some software does the bulk of the work. Simultaneously there are more skilled workers, so individual wages go down. 30 years ago there were a lot less people going to college and demand for their services hasn't scaled with supply

>>11900830
interesting point, i don't know enough about the daily goings-on of the job, but the data do seem to show that the number of engineering jobs have been steadily increasing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2014/09/12/the-most-in-demand-and-oldest-engineering-jobs/#153e1eaf1e37

>>11900855
That makes sense. Think about aluminium, before the development of the Hall–Héroult process, it was too expensive for everyday use, now it's super cheap and everywhere. You find more uses for resources as they become cheaper

>>11900871

perhaps, but i don't think the comparison is ideal, as it's still just as hard to make an engineer, and their salaries are steadily increasing.

>>11900887
The number of college graduates is now much bigger, meaning the same institutions generate a lot more experts. And then there is immigration, that further drives down the cost of skill

>>11900918
how do you mean cost? more than just salary? because the graph above shows salaries increasing despite the number of graduates

>>11900041
t retard who didn’t spend 3 seconds researching the topic

>>11900968
Salaries increase but much, much less thant the growth in value, meaning skill is being used much more efficiently. Wages stagnate while productivity skyrocketed because a single skilled worker can deliver much more value, but is just as replaceable as before or even more. Wages correlate more with how hard it is to find your skill than with how useful/productive you are

>>11900041
It's the consumerism that is the problem. A billionaire isn't necessarily hurting anyone unless through his gluttony he drives up the price of the goods that regular people need to survive.

>>11900793
>did you just
Yes, they started the business and people agreed to work under their conditions
>they would stop purchasing from them
If there is competition, I don't see why they couldn't do so. There isn't even a need to do it in the first place. People will keep buying from Microsoft because they like their stuff the most. People will still use Google because they prefer it the most. And those corporations will keep growing because people keep giving them power in exchange for what they offer.
Now go back to r/socialism

Corporations are like a raffle. Everyone buys tickets, some people win. Socialists want to get rid of raffles. Lol.

>>11900813
Luck in the sense of people suddenly giving a shit about your product or service and acquiring popularity, yes. You don't have to invent something to deserve your wealth, just provide people with what they need or want. And it's completely fair. You don't have to be the first to do or make something to deserve wealth.
>Outsized wealth has dangerous political and social implications: lobbying, censorship, preventing innovation. An amount of 'power' that is disproportionate to the effort they put in to actually make the business.
This is a valid point, but I believe that Capitalism is also about responsibility. How far these corporations can go in terms of acquiring power in an unfair way depends on how responsible society is. I'm not talking about idealisms, but if people are responsible enough, these things would be scandals and the corporations would lose their consumer base for moral reasons.
>Billionaires take over emergent markets, without inventing anything, without creating the market. They should be humble with there wealth, but are not, they pretend they are made of gold, brilliant, untouchable.
Innovation can damage pre-established monopolies / oligopolies that dominate a market. If they buy the businesses that improved the quality of a product or service, the market would be still dominated by them but consumers would benefit from this anyway because the innovation is still there.
Just to add something. Billionares won't be billionares forever. People can easily lose their wealth for taking a bad choice or because they abandoned their businesses and started to spend all the money they had. The Forbes list is not the same as decades ago.

>>11900041
The options market is even worse. But it's a great way to make money.

>>11901016
This would only be true if billionaires kept to themselves and didn't try to affect government for more money.

>>11900813
>They should be humble with there wealth
The process that allowed them to gain that wealth is why they can't be humble with it. You don't become a billionaire by being nice.

>>11900765
>leads to socialism, where inequality is almost non existent but everyone is poor.
Hmmm, sounds like if billionaires were smart, they'd invest better in eliminating poverty without needing to be taxed by the government.

>>11901142
>This would only be true if billionaires kept to themselves
It's true of Elon fucking Musk and his ilk, who buy up all the lithium for their luxury cars, which drives up the price of the phones working class people need to survive. It's true of everyone, not just billionaires. It's true of drug dealers who spend every cent they have on new bentleys every year. It's true of millionaires who fly around the world.

People who spend large amounts of money living their lives make life significantly harder for people who are barely making ends meet.

That is just basic economics 101. Larger demand leads to higher price. Eat the whole cake fatty.

>>11901178
>People who spend large amounts of money living their lives make life significantly harder for people who are barely making ends meet.

And unbelievably, THIS, this deluded psychotic mentality is the ideal to strive for in our society. "For the gram". And we think a fucking carbon tax is gonna save the climate. What a joke of a retarded wretched species we've become... It's pathetic.

>>11901178
Honestly I hope the trophy hunting hick who works at the mine and drives a lifted truck, and the limousine liberal tech "entrepreneur" with 5 white bmws and a tesla literally mutually annihilate. They're at opposite ends of the retard spectrum and we'd all be better off without them.

>>11901175
Most already make donations, but poverty won't disappear just by giving free money

>>11901229
"Investing in eliminating poverty" could mean "give everyone $15k so technically no one is below the poverty line", or it could mean spending more on social programs that typically would be run by the state.

>>>/his/

>>11900041
You're not wrong. But you've provided no alternatives, and are thus, a faggot.

>>11900044
Based. The stock market is entirely psychological. That's why it does so well under Trump because he only ever comes out and says "stock market great, wonderful. Stock market big money! BIG NUMBERS!!".

It's literally all you have to do to make it go up and there's still a portion of retards in the world who don't get it. That's the most shocking part about it desu.

>>11900044
>Biology defines how we think
>How we think defines how we act in society
>How we act in society defines how it is arranged
>How society is arranged includes how people trade with others things they think have value (Economy)
>Not science or math

>>11901261
>give everyone $15k so technically no one is below the poverty line", or it could mean spending more on social programs that typically would be run by the state.
are there any examples of this working in practice? What are the common pitfalls they encounter?

>>11900442
Yes but the government and the financial system are intertwined. The bankers ARE the government. Goldman Sachs is just one of the investment banks that essentially runs the country. They choose the President/Senators etc. because of the enormous funding they provide. And they also completely own the corporate media to the extent that they can hoodwink the entire nation to supporting illegal wars overseas (Iraq, Afghanistan etc.).

It's fucking hard to break this cycle. We're trying our best. But we need to recognise that the system is rigged from the first place.

>>11901403
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

>>11900046
In principle, sure. But once products and strategies like short selling or pumps and dumps enter the picture, you're quite a few steps away from symbiosis. The more abstract it gets from investing into long positions, the less benign.

>>11901414
big bizness has bought democracy, illusion of choice, yang's idea of "democracy dollars" solves this problem
give money that can only be spent on politicians to citizens who then decide to allocate it to the politician they want
this way the funding is done via the people and if the politician fucks up he'll get no funding anymore next election cycle
this removes the parasitic big bizness influence because the people will have more cash than the billions the big bizness give to the politicians
its a genius idea

>>11901092

>Its completely fair
I never said they shouldn't have more money. thats fair. But they shouldn't be able to rake in billions annually without lifting a finger for literally not inventing anything but occupying a pre-existant market.
>Capitalism is about responsibility
This is fine if you live in a world where people judge a companies actions, can easily access alternatives, or even just give a crap. You can just pay newspapers/ people/ organisations not to talk, which is what you do if you rake in billions with little effort. Capitalism is fine, markets are good, but outsized wealth endangers both.

>Companies buy innovation
No this isn't true. Its easier to rebrand a current technology than engineer a new one. This is why governments have to actively encourage investment is novel startups (big business will not fund it itself). Innovation is high risk, high capital, low reward - exactly what a market selects against.
>Billionaires change
Some do, some don't. There are powerful dynasties. And my problem isn't with them personally, its that every billionaire will have similar interests (they are similar people for obvious reasons). It doesn't matter who pilots the 'billionaire', its the fact they exist/ exert the influence they do.

>>11901149
>They aren't nice
I didn't say they were. I didn't say i want 'nice' businessmen. They just have outsized wealth. they objectively do not earn what they have. They do not work 17000 times harder than their average employee...maybe 10x...and they deserve more money, but not the level of influence they think they deserve.

>>11901149
And see the source i originally posted. At the billionaire level...its luck, not work. Specifically not even good luck, just not bad luck.
Sure initially they work hard, but once they are the dominant player in the market its just a snowball effect- everyone knows them, they buy up the competition, no one 'more competitive' can establish themselves in the market. eg imagine if you suddenly had a carbon copy of all of googles servers, coders, code (magically)...could you compete with google? Would anyone even notice you?

Or take another example, facebook/twitter. If you magically had the same (or better) platform, could you compete with facebook? Of course not. the market has been taken, people won't switch.

>>11901563
>But they shouldn't be able to rake in billions annually without lifting a finger for literally not inventing anything but occupying a pre-existant market.
They're free to participate in whichever market they want. They earn billions because of the amount of consumers in that market, who made the choice to buy from them. The action of inventing something doesn't make you more deserving of wealth. People are the ones who provide producers with money in the first place. If innovation makes your product better in the eyes of consumers, you win. If not, you lose.
>Its easier to rebrand a current technology than engineer a new one
Yes, it's easier, but there's no real incentive if you're selling the same shit. Only retards do it. Even so, big tech companies are still innovating in many fields. Technology isn't the same as many years ago and will keep improving because the market demands it.
>Innovation is high risk, high capital, low reward - exactly what a market selects against.
Yes, it's high risk but definitely not low reward (at least not in tech related markets). Technological stagnation can only happen forcefully or when a ceiling is reached. People prefer better thigns than the ones they already have. This is an opportunity for small businesses to grow, but oligopolies hate the increase in competition, so they have to keep up with the current demands too. In the end, consumers win.

>>11901633
>They earn billions because of the consumers
Yes, but only because of their share in the market, which as i've said is largely a snowball. There are lots of reasons whey they shouldn't have billions (alluded to above). And it isn't always the innocent exchange you present. And no, people do not make an informed choice about amazon, they use it because it is big and known.

>Big tech is innovating
No it isn't. Its put more money into psychology to get people hooked than it has but into researching any true material benefit.
>The market demands innovation
again false. Markets demand money. As before v little money in true innovation. Theres way more money for cheap dopamine hits.
>Its not low reward
It is, because you have to fund all the non-yielding innovation. Computers were not invented by free markets, neither were transistors. Wifi was not invented by free markets...they were improved. But the hard work was done for them- the proof of concept. Same for drugs/ any chemical synthesis. The hard work of creating the market/technology for the market/ is done for them but billionaires deserve the cash? No, give it to inventors, through tax, to keep inventing new (unfathomable) markets.and, like in singapore, force companies to invest in novel start ups.

>>11901665
>Yes, but only because of their share in the market. And it isn't always the innocent exchange you present.
If there's competition, there's an alternative. If having a big company in a market was a problem by itself, people would not buy from them at all.
>And no, people do not make an informed choice about amazon, they use it because it is big and known.
And that's what needs to change. The more information people can deal with the better choices they will take in this regard.
>No it isn't. Its put more money into psychology to get people hooked than it has but into researching any true material benefit.
Regardless if what you said applies to every company, this statement implies that they're, in fact, innovating.
>again false. Markets demand money. As before v little money in true innovation. Theres way more money for cheap dopamine hits.
Markets include both suppliers and consumers. If consumers want innovation suppilers will work on it, or else they get replaced.
>Computers were not invented by free markets, neither were transistors. Wifi was not invented by free markets...they were improved.
First of all, innovation doesn't refer solely to something completely new being created. Improvements are also innovations. Also, I don't see why you need to list things that were not invented by the markets (And it's wrong to say this, semantically speaking, but let's ignore this) as if it was a rule. The first car was invented by a company.
>But the hard work was done for them- the proof of concept
Improvements are also hard work. They also require funds and testing.
>The hard work of creating the market/technology for the market/ is done for them but billionaires deserve the cash?
Billionares created the businesses that made those things comercially available and provided consumers with them. Why are they-

>>11902073
less deserving of wealth? Also, patents are a thing. They give special rights to the inventor for up to 20 years before his invention belongs to the public.
>No, give it to inventors, through tax, to keep inventing new (unfathomable) markets.
Why? If an inventor doesn't want others to use his creation, he can apply for a patent which can be sold. Even if you tax them, billionares will still be billionares.
>like in singapore, force companies to invest in novel start ups.
This actually sounds good, but if it's too much of a nuisance, the company would move out and leave many jobless.

>>11900041
how do you propose we update the system?

social point system
meritocracy that isnt as punishing or rewarding
>communism
long term goals and projects utilising resources as necessary
>china communism
>possible path to utopia
>1984 utopia

i need to read more books

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-9fqbg_MJBCdjvvPY5HzXkWfmSQJzHMm/view?usp=sharing

>>11900041
It contributes to making me wealthy, the most important contribution to society.