The Rules of Investing Are Being Loosened. Could It Lead to the Next 1929?
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
nytimes.comOtherstory
calmmixed
Debate
40/100
InvestingFinancial RegulationMarket Crash
Key topics
Investing
Financial Regulation
Market Crash
The article discusses how loosening investment rules may lead to another market crash like 1929, sparking debate among commenters about the likelihood and potential consequences of such an event.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Light discussionFirst comment
59m
Peak period
3
0-2h
Avg / period
1.7
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 13, 2025 at 6:36 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 13, 2025 at 7:34 PM EDT
59m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
3 comments in 0-2h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 14, 2025 at 5:22 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45574061Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 2:43:43 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
A tax hike won't destroy the economy, the current levels of corporate profits and market valuations allow for a lot higher taxes on profits above certain level.
> The only way out is with inflation.
Inflation is still a tax, it's a tax collected from the poor and given to the rich, it further enriches the already rich and impoverishes the middle and the poor.
Suggesting inflation as a cure for debt is both evil and a sort of anti-economics, a solution that wasn't, and isn't, a part of any social agreement, written or otherwise.
Moreover, the Fed mandates are a social agreement that promises to keep inflation low. Taxes, on the other hand, are the official way to pay back government debt, they are an official part of the social contract.
If we decided to raise taxes today, sure. But if the OBBB is anything to go by, we’ll keep cutting taxes and growing the debt until it’s too late.
> Inflation is still a tax
Never argued it wasn’t. I was referring to income taxes and duties in the OP.
> Suggesting inflation as a cure for debt
My opinion: The cure for the debt (and the economy writ large) is tax hikes on high income earners and increased social spending on services with net positive return (e.g. IRS, healthcare). (A healthy society is able to work more and therefore generate more tax revenue. Universal healthcare would also be net cheaper than the current system). This will, of course, never happen because people keep voting in Chuck Schumers and Donald Trumps.
> social contract
Trump doesn’t give a shit. I doubt he knows what “social contract” even is. He has usurped the power of the purse for himself, conducted illegal kidnappings and deportations, and erected concentration camps. He doesn’t care about the law or social norms and it seems like everyone else is just OK with that. This is the same Trump who is vying for control over the Fed and will get to pick 2 board governors this year. Suffice it to say there is a huge danger that he gets his way and we go back to rock-bottom interest rates. If he gets his way, Trump will absolutely abuse the Fed to pump the stock market and then mail a graph of SPY to his supporters like he did in his first term.
Nothing new, business people desire unquestioned power over their employees which makes them lousy politicians. However, I don't think we should accept that just because everyone else does and get into a situation where apathy begets apathy.
The question is, why aren't we talking in principle instead of accepting the idea of a doomed future and hiding our apathy behind everyone else's?
> Trump doesn’t give a shit.
How did that happen? How did he and the GOP get all the power? Where were the Dem party and the "liberal" media? And why?