He’s like a reverse Midas: If he touches gold it turns to shit
The Mierdas Touch.
It used to be different, at least in his effect. Musk managed to create a public persona that for some reason stood for success. That’s how he hyped up e.g. Tesla. It’s a double-edged sword though. Just as a good name can elevate projects, a bad name can tear them down and Musks hype has taken quite the damage in the public eye and his persona turned from a strong asset into a liability.
All Musk had to do was to keep his stupid mouth shut and keep playing the “I wanna improve humankind” benevolent billionaire. But no! He had to give his shitty opinion about that cave rescue in Thailand, then getting butt hurt about the expert not thinking his idea was brilliant and then call him a pedo.
And even that wasn’t enough to destroy all of his public image. Dude could’ve stopped there, some people would’ve disliked him, but as far as the general public is concerned, it didn’t happen or he had a singular brain fart. But he kept fucking up to the point where even the general public is aware what a hack he is. Twitter is of course the pinnacle of his ego.
Dropping Tesla shares sounds like a good choice not only for pension funds. I’d trust they’d drop them even if they weren’t joining the labor crisis
And all that by taking massive profits probably
I expect my pension fund to make massive profits so yes, hopefully
Ooh that’s a fun way of fighting.
🤔 interesting, will look into this
Why the fuck is it legal to gamble with worker’s retirement funds in the stock market?
Putting pension funds into safe long-term stocks & bonds is very normal.
I guess Tesla is no longer considered safe.
Tesla stock was never safe, it’s way too inflated.
That’s the problem. It shouldn’t be normal.
Would you prefer pensions to lose most of their value to inflation?
Would you prefer to they lost their value due to some rando picking the wrong stock, or from a total market collapse?
A total market collapse and after that the economy does not recover? I guess we will have more serious problems than pensions then. These funds are highly diversified. It’s not like they gamble all on one company.
If you’ve got a better idea for what to do with pension contributions we’re all ears.
That’s why the stocks aren’t picked individually at all. They are picked in the opposite way to ensure that no single stock, industry, country can cause a total loss. By this diversification investing into stocks is for example safer than keeping the money in the local economy, as it introduces some decoupling from the economy of the country of the fund and the funds value. Meaning it can still pay out money (introduce value) even if there’s a local collapse, as such it’s a stabilizing force for the economy.
Regarding a total collapse, you’d need to specify what you mean exactly. The term is just to wide to discuss and address concerns.
The point is parasites are gambling with, and profiting from, assets that were aquired through other people’s labor. It’s often mandatory for blue collar workers, and if they don’t want participate, they’re penalized for withdrawing their money.
If this offends you, I don’t care. This entire “industry” is parasitic, and immoral. And so are the people who defend it.
If you think all investing is parasitic gambling and aren’t willing listening to arguments I’m sorry for you.
I’m noy offended by other opinions and I’m willing to change my position (although of course that will require lot’s of points for such strong positions).
Just calling something bad without elaborating is not a useful addition to any discussion, so if you don’t want to argue actual the actual merits of your opinion you won’t convince anyone, you’ll just get positive feedback from people tyat already have your opinion. So, I guess, enjoy your bubble?
You can see the alternative in Germany. A considerable amount of tax money has to go into the pension fund just to keep it alive. It’s the biggest part of our budget!
To be fair a large part of that is the ridiculous assumptions built into the system from the start, as far as I recall they assumed something like an 18% population growth from generation to generation as a minimum. This obviously won’t work if you have past giant generations retiring at times when the current generation is much smaller.
What would you do with it? Just let it sit there and have it eaten by inflation?
