11 ms·
I made no mention of anyone being politically sympathetic or otherwise. A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout. The argume
by za_creature 4mo ago
I made no mention of anyone being politically sympathetic or otherwise. A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout. The argument for government bailouts used to be that "grandpa would lose his pension", I merely stated the terms that would make this non-applicable.
If pensions invest in the stock market, then they are de-facto acting as a bank. And last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so [please don't do this based on this post alone].
- JumpCrisscross 4mo ago> A private investor is _private_ and thus not subject to a government bailout What does this mean? Who do you think benefits from a bailout? > If pensions invest in the stock market Pensions are private investors. And pensions invest in all kinds of things. Plenty are already shareholders in these companies. > last I checked, in the land of the free, you get to withdraw your 401k should you vibe with the decision to do so This is a non sequitur. Nobody disputed this. And 401(k)s are not pensions.
- za_creature 4mo ago[flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 4mo agoIt’s an important difference. Pension funds direct their investments. 401(k)s are self directed. Again, these words have meaningful differences you’re ignoring.
- za_creature 3mo ago> 401(k)s are self directed Citation needed