[Dracophoenix]

>If the wealthy lost money proportionate to their gamble and literally fell on the streets, shoulder to shoulder with the commoner, most people wouldn't have a problem with a fed downturn.

Isn't that exactly what happens when the stock values go down? That most don't end up on the street isn't a result of any magic tricks, but of diversifying investments. So if Amazon goes to shit during an upcoming recession/depression, I would assume that Bezos has more than enough money parked in real estate or other assets.

[nine_zeros]

Diversifying investments helps the rich for sure. It is the wise choice to make.

But the real problem is bailouts and cheap loans for the rich to cruise through the downturn while the ordinary person will likely lose their job and healthcare.

[Dracophoenix]

>But the real problem is bailouts and cheap loans for the rich to cruise through the downturn while the ordinary person will likely lose their job and healthcare.

While I agree with the idea that government shouldn't give bailouts, I don't see how obtaining cheap loans when one has sufficient collateral to wager is a problem. Banks tried subprime lending before and the result was a global recession and a tighter grip on the financial industry.

[nine_zeros]

Acquiring cheap loans without losing collateral when things go south - is the problem.

[Dracophoenix]

Are you referring to bankruptcy courts or something else?