You must log in or register to comment.
This is outright lying with statistics. The majority of traders on U.S. stock exchanges (95%+) are individual traders. They just use a clearing house that does the trading for them because it’s cheaper and faster.
By volume, right?
95% of volume is done by individual traders?
Yeah, but I don’t think, that was the point of the meme. It was just about making fun of tankies.
i thought it was making fun of US capitalism where socialism is used as an invective.
A mutual fund buys and sells on behalf of the consumer so individuals don’t have voting rights.
Also wrong. You can vote if you buy stocks themselves and not mutual funds.
Also wrong.
Only 21% of Americans directly own stock.
https://www.fool.com/research/how-many-americans-own-stock/?msockid=3cc1caf3010a68e612d9dc83002769e8
You can’t say a statement is wrong by agreeing with it. You just said that they use clearing houses. The majority of stock ownership in the US is through mutual funds and other similar products where individuals cannot vote.
You can vote if you buy stocks themselves and not mutual funds.
I said people who buy mutual funds can’t vote you muppet.
Marx loved markets that’s why his name shares three letters.
He loves them so much “Marx” is just his cool hip abbreviation for “markets”
.ml collectively shits pants
There are two types of tankie. They either a) are very good at selectively ignoring what they’re not supposed to see or b) not true believers and are just trolling for the lolz
You forgot the third type: use dialectical materialism to analyze the world and understand what’s going on around them instead of using idealist and moral thinking like “markets bad”, allowing them to have nuanced understandings of why a revolutionary state would have a stock market.
Internal contradictions are akshually totally good and not evidence of ideological impurity!
I love that your standard is ideological purity! It’s like you’re a textbook case of what not to do.
use dialectical materialism
AKA, mental gymnastics.
It takes mental gymnastics to call tankies both dogmatic book worshippers and simultaneously people who can accept a Chinese stock market into their understanding of revolutionary theory.
Nobody ever said tankies are good at theory. It’s not complicated: Tankies dogmatically worship the biggest state that calls itself communist and pretend it’s doing what the books say.
So much contradiction wrapped up into one simple comment.
They’re dogmatic because they pretend that it’s aligned with the sacred texts? And you’re better than that because you adhere more strictly to the text? Do you see the problem here? In fact, tankies don’t judge AES by textual alignment. It is not a requirement that any state that calls itself communist does what the books say.
In fact, it’s clearly impossible for them to do so, because the books are theory, which comes before practice. Practice will always be ahead of the published and established theory, but it will always be behind the leading edge of theory which is not established and often not published. That theory is not settled theory. It gets settled through… practice. We are all capable of incorporating a collapse of China into our theory as much as we are capable of incorporating a transition to a more socialist organization into our theory, because our theory is built upon real world experiences, not textual analysis.
But also, how do you account for the tankies’ support for the smaller, and even the smallest, state that calls itself communist? Are they worshiping them too? What about when the small states and the big states do it differently and the tankies support both of them? How does that work?
What about the ones that turn off their mind and start regurgitating unrelated talking points?
I feel like that’s just a subset of type A.
There are a lot of ways to be “good” at ignoring what you are not supposed to see. Turning your brain off is a pathway to many abilities some consider unnatural.
It’s almost like MLs aren’t dogmatic and don’t need to assess everything by whether or not it’s approved by specific authors
