461–470 of 540 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What banks? And why banks? Banks are not involved in the short squeezes at all.
Banks back the primary dealers who take and back these leveraged trades. They are up to their noses in this.
if you against banking, you have bigger fish to fry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Half the fun of WSB is that it is enormously offensive. That's the way 4chan presented too, and it turned out that the community wasn't entirely as ironic as its members claimed. Cultures turn toxic really, really fast. And this kind of "ironic offensiveness" turns into a shield for genuine hate in a way that even long term participants don't notice until it's too late.
Not wrong. Eternal September ruins everything
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Characterizing this as a "rich folk" vs "common folk" issue is hilarious. Aside from the early "common folks" that cashed out, there's also plenty of "rich folks" that cashed out as well[1]. As for the losers, well the hedge funds who were shorted initially definitely lost money, although it remains to be seen whether the "rich folk" hedge funds who shorted this week lost money. It also remains to be seen whether the…
This doesn't deserve to be downvoted. Lots of rich investors are using this as an opportunity to further enrich themselves. The narrative that this is "David vs Goliath" is only partially true; in reality it's Goliath vs Goliath, except one of the Goliaths has David strapped to his chest to absorb any blows.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This kind of boils down to preference in humanity as well. Do you prefer a group that makes dick/retard/cuck jokes for laughes or prefer a group that laughed when they ruined the economy, put people out in the streets and coerced the gov to bail them out because they were too important to go out on the street? Politically correct speech is bankrupt in all forms of ethics and morality if it favors the second group jus…
Less clever people show up and attach to the “offensive” part without bringing along the “clever” part. Going a bit off topic, but HNs constant fight against this is its best asset. Sometimes it's annoying to see a funny joke down-voted, but it's so much better than the entire comment section devolving into nonsense like slashdot did >15 years ago.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Banks back the primary dealers who take and back these leveraged trades. They are up to their noses in this.
what? banks just lend money and are scared of defaults. what do banks have to do with this? the power company is complicit by providing electricity too? if you against banking, you have bigger fish to fry
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Serious question: Since Facebook is a private company, does the "if you don't like it, you can build your own platform" argument apply here? Or does that only apply selectively when it benefits partisan politics? The RobinHood $GME situation is the natural next step in societal evolution once extreme censorship is given a pass. If you support the "go build it yourself" argument, you no longer have the right to compla…
Absolutely! I'm not sure why you replied to my comment with this but I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right. Especially because there is no commercial or contractual relationship between us. I am not a customer of Facebook. If you pay for hosting t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it "over leveraged"? What makes you think the stock is "out of balance"? The hype men will have you believe that there is some magic percentage or tipping point that makes it a good buy but it's pure bunk. If GME has any relationship to the company GameStop (which it does) the stock should be in the toilet and is very likely to go out of business soon, which makes a massive short position very reasonable.
Go read the current financial position yourself. The hedge funds still have to buy over 100% of the total amount of GME shares to cover their short positions. To do that they need to buy existing shares at current market value or they go bankrupt. Its a vicious cycle. Go look at previous short squeezes that have happened.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Largely because the "gamestop maneuver" has inflammed an already excitable community and things are likely bubbling over right now in a way that they wouldn't be if people hadn't just bet thousands of dollars on a tulip scam. And let's not euphemize this, it's not a "maneuver", it's market manipulation. Coordinating a collective buy to effect a short squeeze is clear market manipulation. Enticing a horde of gullible…
How does a pump and dump work if you realized your losses before you even bought the stock and never end up selling? In my opinion the value of GME is $0 and that doesn't stop me from wanting to buy more but never selling ever because of the entertainment value.
Step 2: convince a lot of people to buy GME "for entertainment value"
Step 3: sell GME after it rises well above what it is worth
Perhaps you don't care that you got fleeced, but that doesn't change the fact that you did.
Frankly, this is a good thing. Maybe when those who were so sanguine about the recent censoring by Big Tech see it without the blinders of their political bias on, and also witness to the coordinates attacks by the media to justify it, the other Big Lie will be obvious to more people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, I don't want to bust your balls in particular. We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing and I'm sure you're coming from a good place. But surely you must acknowledge that I should not be free to, for example, dox you right here and now (my freedom of speech is overruled by your expectation of privacy and right to pseudonymity); likewise I should not be free to go around telling all your…
> We both believe that freedom of speech is generally a good thing I doubt it. Cases in point: > I should not be free to > I should not be free to go around telling all your friends Free speech is absolute by definition, otherwise it is not free. If you don't believe in free speech, you don't believe in free speech. Own up, don't try to weasel around with words. Say it: I do not support free speech. This is the main…
And when the principles of freedom and liberty come into conflict with each other, how will you resolve it? If you must excommunicate me from the church of freedom of speech for the heresy of believing in the existence of more important personal liberties, then I accept my ostracision.
In the meantime, /u/DeepFuckingValue was doxxed today. Do you believe that Reuters' right to free speech outweighs his right to privacy?