It's not "the beginning of a meltdown" because everybody still owns all their money and no bank is failing. There's a customer service issue for users of a non-bank service. That is part of the risk you take when you're putting money in a non-bank.
It sucks for the users obviously but like where would a contagion even begin? This is already the largest BaaS middleman. This is as big as this issue gets.
Putting a percentage of your income in the stock market is a very good idea. Even if you're a conspiracy person and you think a mysterious "them" controls the world, "them" are rich people who own stocks. They will make sure the value of stocks go up.
If you're not a conspiracy person, just look at history. The value of stocks always goes up in the long term, and you hold retirement accounts for the long term.
The last color of the rainbow is Purple. Violet and Indigo were made up by Green to divide Purple. Make no mistake, Green is actively working against your interests.
The popularization of the stock market make the “means of production” definition fuzzy. If you own .001% of Tesla, do you own the means of production? What about 1%? What about 20%? Is it 51%? Elon Musk is obviously in the owner class, but he only controls 20% of Tesla. But if it’s 20%, then does going in with 4 buddies to buy a $500,000 surface parking lot make you an owner? You only need $100k for that and you might not even be employing anyone, and you’re not producing anything except parking. You’re not like set for life at $100k.
I assume this is solved by using money as the “means of production” instead of thinking of it as ownership of a business or machine, but that still doesn’t solve the fuzzy nature of it, you need to set a border at an amount of money.
The fuzzy part is picking an amount to consider “enough to live off of.” Elon Musk still works, it’s not a question of if you are currently working but a question of whether you need to. But some people “leanfire” retire with $300k in stocks. So is everyone with a net worth of $300k or more part of the Bourgeoisie?
And apologies to the true theorists because I’m sure Marx covered this somewhere but this makes me wonder about the elderly or unfortunate living off of government payments like Social Security with zero net worth…they don’t work to survive, but they don’t have any money.
I see what you’re saying but I don’t think you’ve closed any gaps. If leanfire is bourgeoisie at $300k, then people with the same amount of money who are working instead of retiring are choosing to work, just like Musk.
I get that it shouldn’t be a net worth calculation, but that’s really a stand-in for the conundrum that occurs when someone could retire but isn’t, and who gets to define what “could retire” means. Is someone staying one extra year in the coal mines to pay for their granddaughter’s college in the bourgeoisie for that year? Does it matter what the goal is? What about staying multiple years? What if the goal is making enough money to launch a mission to Mars? I’m back on Musk.
You’re either setting the definition at literal need, in which case you’re making a pretty huge bourgeoisie of whom a large percentage work for a living, or it’s just fuzzy because you need to know interests and intentions and internal thoughts and feelings.
What an insane way to look at it. People say they are worried about the economy, but they are spending like they are not worried about the economy.
Economists would say that economic activity reveals the true feelings, maybe people are saying they don’t like “the economy” as a political statement or to align with the vibe they are getting from others, while actually feeling OK about their own economic prospects.
Or maybe people’s spending and feelings are disconnected now because they still have a savings cushion from the government covid assistance which changes the math.
No matter how you feel about the odds of those interpretations…surely they are more coherent than this crazy article cobbled together to find any possible way to make resilient consumer spending, aka the bedrock of the economy, look bad.
If you’re firmly going to buy a house in 2-3 years, putting a down payment into stocks just adds volatility to the amount you’re putting down, meaning volatility to the type of house you’re able to afford and/or whether or not you are able to afford a house at all. Stocks usually go up 10% ish as a long term average, but they could easily go down 20% in both of the next 2 years.
If you’re willing to take the risk and maybe wait up to 3 more years or something to actually buy a house, probably putting them in stocks helps you because the money grows faster. But most people, for lifestyle reasons, want a house in the next 2-3 years and that timeline is firm and not really relying on that money to grow. That is why the advice is usually a CD or high yield internet savings account like Ally or Discover.
Does anyone remember a webcomic from like 10-20 years ago where the main character was a ghost and the author was like depressed? I think there was a controversy where she made merch and people paid her but she got overwhelmed and burned it all or something?
USA: The financial meltdown is beginning. ( www.nbcnews.com )
They are keeping this quiet, but this affects 2.9% of US bank customers.
Was the 401(k) a Mistake? How an obscure, 45-year old tax change transformed retirement and left so many Americans out in the cold. ( www.nytimes.com )
Make no mistake, the owning class is actively working against your interests ( i.redd.it )
Americans are 'doom spending' — here's why that's a problem ( www.cnbc.com )
Short Term Places for a Downpayment
Hi all -...
xkcd #2836: A Halloween Carol ( imgs.xkcd.com )
xkcd.com/2836...