660
US stock market loses $5 trillion in value as Trump plows ahead on tariffs
(www.straitstimes.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
660 points (99.1% liked)
politics
31034 readers
1855 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The fact that spooking the market could wipe out such an absurd amount of money, larger than many GDPs - and the economy hasn't even crashed completely at all yet - should provide a good reference for how much of billionaire wealth is actually just abstract numbers representing nothing tangible but raw power over people and processes.
At some level of wealth, money stops being conceptually a medium of exchange for goods and services, and just becomes a scoreboard for bragging rights.
More or less, although it's important, that it still very much is a medium of power, as its role as financial capital and/or in national budgets ultimately decides which projects and actions are allowed to exist and go through and which aren't
At some level its a scoreboard, sure. But at a much more important level, it is a claim on future consumption. Currency and credit consolidated in the hands of a tiny minority create a de facto oligarchy. Corporate industry decides national policy entirely from within board rooms and on billionaire chat groups devoid of democratic participation or oversight.
If it was just a high score or a championship ring, the consequences would be far less severe. But imagine a football team that - upon winning the Super Bowl - got automatic first pick on every draft-eligible college student. That's the real danger of this wealth consolidation. It puts businesses in a position such that they can greedily gobble up the most valuable resources, entirely for the purpose of over-performing into the next season and maintaining their lock on championship title indefinitely.
And then imagine of the city that hosts the Super Bowl gets a "Hunger Games" style socio-economic dividend, affording them a quality of life that radically outstrips their neighbors. And then we run this cycle quarterly for a solid century.
I’m struggling a little to understand the main aim of this comment. It’s not untrue, there’re just a lot of parts going in different directions and, potentially, coming from different places. Without context it’s kinda just a surface observation, ya know?
i think the commenter is just baffled at how drastically overvalued (over hyped) so many stocks are - a well known problem where speculative over investment can and does distort the whole economy and has power over the whole population. see for example, speculation bubbles like the dotcom overvaluation or subprime mortgages, or Theranos, or Bitcoin, or even how Tesla stock was being traded higher than the next 6-8 major car companies combined.
in other words, stock prices are a bunch of bullshit.
stocks arent exactly the same as "money" in the common sense so it confuses people when headlines say money was lost or wiped out. but stocks are similar to money in that they are placeholders for value, however much more susceptible to wild devaluations. because ultimately they're just speculative bets on what something is worth and can fluctuate rapidly, as rapidly and suddenly as human emotions.
Basically, it was just that surface level observation. But in our intuitive minds, we sometimes forget, that money there doesn't behave a medium of exchange like how we use it as common proles. In politics and finance, it's a means of power and decisions, instead.
That much I know, and unfortunately the original comment could have pulled from many places. Mostly I was just trying to make sure they weren’t one of those “rich people aren’t actually rich” or “rich people take risks!” people.
Does it need to be more?