• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

S&P 500 touches record high as furious rally continues

Peter said:
I'm not giving it to anyone.
The government will get the money to spend in infrastructure for everyone.

Yes, I think its possible for people to have enough money just as I think its possible to have enough food.
Click to expand...
You actually have no idea how the government would spend it. Who knows why you pretend to know how they would spend it.
 
Jagged said:
You actually have no idea how the government would spend it. Who knows why you pretend to know how they would spend it.
Click to expand...

So because I'm not omniscient I can't have a plan?
Who can then?
 
Peter said:
So because I'm not omniscient I can't have a plan?
Who can then?
Click to expand...
No one can. Yet another reason not to trust our government with taking 100% of so e peoples' income.
 
Peter said:
You don't consider someone with $900m wealthy?
Click to expand...
Sure.

Peter said:
I'm sure someone with the $1b max money will cope and not instantly become suicidally depressed.
I know Id be fine with that as a limit.
Click to expand...
You still haven't addressed what limiting the amount of wealth people can obtain does to solve anything.
 
Grogu said:
Wow. Another post with your bragging on the markets and what you claimed previously. What’s your point, and why do you care what others do with their investments?

Well, here, how about some real bragging? You already know my story, because I’ve told you. Guess I’ve got to remind you again. I timed the market perfectly by dumping completely out of the market on 2/25/2025 when I saw Trump’s tariff policy coming, and I preserved my approximately 25% gains from 2024. I lost nothing when Trump tanked the markets at the beginning of April because I had moved out of the S&P 500 index fund into a 4.99% money market fund.

Then, I moved all in again on 4/23/2025 with all of it in FXAIX and on 5/4/2025 I moved half of that into QQQ. I don’t need to tell you how my total returns for 2025 look like- you already know. They’re smoking.

Congrats on the market getting back to where it was on 2/19/2025. I just happen to be way ahead of that.
Click to expand...


For someone who seems eager to jump at the chance to brag you sure raise a fit when you see others doing so.

It's also a bit peculiar how not a single liberal has questioned your incredible market timing here or in your previous posts. When I or any other conservative have posted successful trades we're jumped all over, accused of flat out lying and even when we've posted screenshots there's cries of, 'photoshopped'. I don't even own a cell phone yet I'm somehow a tech genius who can create a detailed financial image in less than 5 minutes.

This place is comical.
 
Peter said:
I'm not giving it to anyone.
The government will get the money to spend in infrastructure for everyone.

Yes, I think its possible for people to have enough money just as I think its possible to have enough food.
Click to expand...


The faith you have in government is baffling. I'm not sure it would matter how many examples we cite of government inefficiency, incompetence or downright stupidity to show taking money from private sector doesn't usually translate to any particular goal getting accomplished.

A notable example being California's high speed rail system.

AI Overview


California's high-speed rail project is widely considered a failure due to significant cost overruns, delays, and a lack of a clear completion timeline. Initially projected to cost $33 billion and be completed years ago, the project's estimated cost has ballooned to $128 billion, with no confirmed completion date. The project has been plagued by management issues, legal challenges, and a lack of funding, leading to a lack of progress and growing criticism.
Click to expand...
 
Peter said:
Oh, no.
One person can't buy a billion dollar company.
I don't see a problem with that and as I said Id use the money for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...
One person can't or can buy a company? If you meant "can," what about a $2b company?

What would happen to the stock market if wealth were limited to $1b? Companies wanting to go public would see more small investors and fewer big investors. If you had an idea that required a $1b investment, you won't find a lone investor to back your business plan. If you happen to find two, and each invested their entire net worth, at $500,000 each, their return is limited to $500,000. The company would then be worth $2b, the owners will sell their stock, and presumably, exit the capital sector as the wealth limit has been reached.

Then the cycle starts all over again. If the company continues to grow, shareholders sell and drop out as the $1b limit is reached. This would obviously prohibit multi-billionaires, but it would seem to do nothing to stop the accumulation of wealth by capitalist speculators.

This of course assumes conditions remain the same, which they definitely would not. Limiting wealth to $1b would have drastic negative effects on the economy.

The responsibility for growth would be taken from the individual and given to collective investment. The larger the company, the greater the coalition needed for a controlling interest. Amazon, with a market cap of $222b, could be owned by no fewer than 222 individuals. The person who created and built the company, would by law, be limited to having the same control over his company as 221 other individuals. The incentive to start and grow a company is greatly diminished with a wealth cap.

Push-button economics doesn't work. Economic behavior doesn't rely on data. Data reveals the behavior. Thinking we can "end hunger" by limiting wealth is a knee-jerk emotional response. It's not well thought out.

There are two competing interests here. Business and labor. The old-fashioned method of unionization still works best. Limiting wealth to $1b won't get anyone a raise. Limiting billionaires' cash flow by going on strike will.
 
Last edited:
^^^ I forgot a few zeroes. $500,000,000, not $500,000.

Hypothetically, if I own a business and have reached the wealth limit of $1b, what happens to my business operations? As any income would now be confiscated, my only interest would be the company itself, which out of pride in accomplishment, I wish to continue. Since I care for the company, not the government, I choose to give 100% of any profits to my employees. I imagine other business owners choose to do the same thing. If owning a business becomes a game among $1b-aires, we each would want to reward the players we've hired.

Good. What happens next? :unsure:
 
dobieg said:
How many of you who pulled your money out of the market because you were sure Trump would tank the economy are still sitting on the sidelines?

I remember many of you laughing when I suggested we'd see new record highs by the fall. I was wrong. It happened much earlier. The only question for myself is how many wheelbarrows I'll need for all this money I'm making.




Click to expand...
Great, and next week you could lose it all again if markets crash-that's what gambling is. What was your point?
 
Ahlevah said:
I assume you’re talking about the fractional reserve system, and in a manner of speaking you are correct.
Click to expand...
Reserve banking is archaic. Required reserves currently sit at 0%.

Banks literally have a license to create money.
 
Kushinator said:
Reserve banking is archaic. Required reserves currently sit at 0%.

Banks literally have a license to create money.
Click to expand...

Well, our “monetary” (money) authorities—our central bankers—also think regulating the money supply is archaic. They’re more focused with propping up banks and speculators with cheap credit. That’s why our currency is shit and former members of the middle class are now poor and can no longer afford a family night out of dinner at Taco Bell and a movie.
 
Ahlevah said:
Well, our “monetary” (money) authorities—our central bankers—also think regulating the money supply is archaic. They’re more focused with propping up banks and speculators with cheap credit. That’s why our currency is shit and former members of the middle class are now poor and can no longer afford a family night out of dinner at Taco Bell and a movie.
Click to expand...
Money is created in banks... not the Fed. Whatever it is you are talking about above is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 
A lot of momentum after breaking through resistance of the previous highs. Doesnt seem like AI investing is slowing down. SP500 could certainly keep climbing higher over the next few months.
 
Kushinator said:
Money is created in banks... not the Fed. Whatever it is you are talking about above is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Click to expand...

Like I said, money is only created by commercial banks to the degree the Federal Reserve permits them to. Before we had a central bank, discipline on money creation was supplied by precious metals. Now the Fed only attempts to instill discipline by regulating the cost and availability or credit. The problem is it’s tended to favor the value of assets held by banks and speculators over the purchasing power of poor people. That’s where leftist snake oil salesmen and magicians like Zohran the Magnificent see opportunity. They convince poor people that Donald Trump and Republicans are fleecing them, not the people turning their money and purchasing power into shit and keeping the cost of basics like food and shelter out of reach.
 
Ahlevah said:
Like I said
Click to expand...
You're not adding anything of value. Reserve limits haven't been a thing in the U.S. for more than five years, and are no longer part of the banking systems of Canada, U.K., Hong Kong, New Zealand, Australia, and Sweden.

Instead, banks now focus on maintaining various tiers of capital ratios.
 
New highs today?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom