Found 2 bookmarks
Newest
MANAGING FINANCIAL INSTABILITY IN 2025
MANAGING FINANCIAL INSTABILITY IN 2025

Managing Financial Instability Risks in 2025

Summary

  • The analysis positions itself as a warning about economic warfare, not financial advice

  • Key threats identified:

    • Alleged Russian influence over key US political figures including Trump and Musk
    • Strategic goal to dismantle US through internal turmoil and financial destabilization
    • Bitcoin characterized as an economic weapon in a zero-sum game
    • Christian Nationalist alignment with plans to destroy dollar/Fed system

  • Immediate financial risks for 2025:

    • Potential government shutdown due to no budget passage
    • Proposed $2 trillion budget cuts by Musk
    • US debt default risk as leverage for cuts
    • Strategic Bitcoin Reserve proposal threatening dollar stability

  • Critical timeline identified:

    • January 2 2025: Government runs out of money
    • January 3: New Congress installation
    • January 20: Treasury transition period
    • May 2025: Potential default date ("X-Date")

  • Recommended defensive measures:

    • Diversify holdings across bonds, real estate, gold/silver ETFs
    • Avoid Bitcoin/crypto investments
    • Contact representatives to oppose extreme measures

  • Additional considerations:

    • Moving to another country unlikely to help financially
    • Social Security potentially at risk
    • Banking system likely to hold but spreading funds recommended
    • Resolution depends on mainstream Republicans recognizing and countering these threats

  • Document context:

    • Living document subject to updates
    • Written by Dave Troy, presented as analysis of warfare operations
    • Includes extensive bibliography and related articles
    • Last updated November 16, 2024
#economy#govt/policy#finance#people/Trump#elections/2024#politics#reference
·docs.google.com·
MANAGING FINANCIAL INSTABILITY IN 2025
Yale Law Journal - Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox
Yale Law Journal - Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox
Although Amazon has clocked staggering growth, it generates meager profits, choosing to price below-cost and expand widely instead. Through this strategy, the company has positioned itself at the center of e-commerce and now serves as essential infrastructure for a host of other businesses that depend upon it. Elements of the firm’s structure and conduct pose anticompetitive concerns—yet it has escaped antitrust scrutiny.
This Note argues that the current framework in antitrust—specifically its pegging competition to “consumer welfare,” defined as short-term price effects—is unequipped to capture the architecture of market power in the modern economy. We cannot cognize the potential harms to competition posed by Amazon’s dominance if we measure competition primarily through price and output. Specifically, current doctrine underappreciates the risk of predatory pricing and how integration across distinct business lines may prove anticompetitive.
These concerns are heightened in the context of online platforms for two reasons. First, the economics of platform markets create incentives for a company to pursue growth over profits, a strategy that investors have rewarded. Under these conditions, predatory pricing becomes highly rational—even as existing doctrine treats it as irrational and therefore implausible.
Second, because online platforms serve as critical intermediaries, integrating across business lines positions these platforms to control the essential infrastructure on which their rivals depend. This dual role also enables a platform to exploit information collected on companies using its services to undermine them as competitors.
#Business#Reference#Tech#Design#Academic#Trends#freaky#legal/laws#govt/policy#companies/amazon
·yalelawjournal.org·
Yale Law Journal - Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox