Hurt 20 millionaires/billionaires, or 100,000,000 working class people. I’m willing at a percentage of income, the investors will still lose less than the average customers are currently losing.
It cuts both ways though.
In theory one could argue that eliminating ETFs would hurt the company owners and investors.
So it does kind of matter which people are being hurt and if they deserve it or not.
Speculater@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Odelay42@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Extremely bad take, lol.
If the company isn’t financially sound without charging customers to no longer be customers, the business isn’t viable.
What an asinine attempt to justify predatory, anti-consumer behaviour from corporations.
kromem@lemmy.world 1 year ago
I’m not sure what part of my “technically are people” language made you think I’m justifying it.
But that is the fiscal conservative argument whether either of us thinks it is a good one or not, and thus a broad “it hurts people” needs greater specificity to scope it to main street concerns and not wall street concerns.
Retrograde@lemmy.world 1 year ago
and there it is, the double down lol
Gross, dude. Listen to yourself.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
That’s… that’s not what they’re saying.
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 year ago
This is some real ‘paradox of tolerance’ reasoning here. Clearly by ‘will people be hurt,’ they mean the average person, not the investor class.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 year ago
Yeah, the “average person” has greater specificity.
lolcatnip@reddthat.com 1 year ago
Seriously. Circular during squad moment.