You must log in or # to comment.
Ugh, pure investment banker propaganda.
Exactly my reaction
If everybody hates it, why does it only have upvotes?
Because we don’t vote based on agreement but on “people should or shouldn’t see this.”
It also has downvotes. And as @avidamoeba@lemmy.ca says, this isn’t Reddit. Up- and down-votes are not a popularity contest.
Now it does. When I came, it stood at 8 upvotes.
And while I expressed myself badly, the reason I downvoted is: I think it’s largely a bad take and I suspect there must be a more reasonable take on the finance union available somewhere.
I don’t entirely disagree, and you may be right about the financial union. I’ve also downvoted this post because I think it’s a waste of space that no one should waste time on – unless they need even more convincing that Axel Springer is garbage. I was originally surprised at such a biased piece from Politico, largely because I forgot that they were sold out to Axel Springer.
What else should you expect from an Axel Springer medium.
Editorializing alone was enough to put me off this article. Finding that it’s essentially a scolding to be more like American-style laissez-faire capitalists, who’ve managed to eliminate workers’ rights and pensions so that most have no choice except to gamble on the stock market for retirement income, was nauseating.
“We want to gamble with people’s savings and retirement funds”
Fuck off. Fuck all the way off. Then fuck off some more.
If you want someone to invest into high-risk ventures, have the ultra-rich do it. They can afford it. Or the institutions which literally exist for this purpose: banks.
The “problem” is that these banks hold most of the savings and retirement funds and when they were found to use them for excessive gambling after the 2008 financial crisis, the regulators put some limits on that.
On the other hand, the ultra-rich massively benefitted from their stock investments in the last couple of years. While institutional investors largely lost because of the regulations in place. So if you believe stock markets are a good way to manage investments, then regulating them in a way that only the ultra rich can benefit from them is probably a bad idea.
But IMHO the entire idea of using a casino (where trading values are largely divorced from the real value creation of the companies traded) as the primary means to steer investments is bad.
Don’t listen to Axel Springer propaganda. They lie and distord facts. They want to make you angry.
Can we stop posting that Axel Springer garbage here?
Go right ahead. Looking forward to seeing you contribute here.
I mean you being condescending isn’t exactly contributing to the culture here and maybe it’s contributing more to not post low quality content than posting just for the sake of it.
First you whine about the link I posted, and now you whine about me asking you to contribute better links if you’re not happy with what I post.
You were saying about contributing to the culture here?
I contribute links I find interesting and if that bothers you so much you can just block me. I’m alright with that.
I suggest starting with the Wikipedia Article on Axel Springer to understand what’s wrong with them. If you already know and you don’t care that explains a lot, but judging from the votes and the comments, most other people also don’t find your article interesting. That together with your style of communication are really not contributing a lot here. Posting ≠ contributing.
You still around? I thought you were going to block me so that you didn’t risk seeing content you didn’t like.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/politico-europe-bias/
I’m still waiting for you to contribute something other than whining. Whining isn’t contributing.
The author’s idea is that we could match the impact of the US IRA and Chinese government investments using the (more or less) voluntarily-provided private savings of EU citizens? That does not sound particularly realistic.
I fail how investing in “the stock market” should be more stimulating than banks handing out loans to businesses, which they do with the money people have “saved” in their accounts.
If they talk about people buying companies when they launch into the stock market, or buying bonds issued by companies, these are precisely the markets were normal end customers should not interact. The information imbalance and risk there is much greater than with established stocks. But me buying a share of one company from another person or institution does give the company exactly zero money.
For companies to raise money at the markets only handing out new stocks or selling bonds are direct options afaik.
