Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

$70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

data-and-politics.ghost.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 480 posts

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#381

Post by impossiblefork »

dragonwriter wrote: post #375
impossiblefork wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think we do. France and Britain alone used to be able to defend trade routes. I don't think it's a huge expense. It really is good for essentially everyone aside from the US itself, once the disruption is over. Obviously we'll have some kind of crash though, but I think that was inevitable with or without this.

> France and Britain alone used to be able to defend trade routes. I don't think it's a huge expense France and Britain used to be two of the world's largest imperial powers, and at any time you could plausibly claim France and Britain alone could defend global trade routes, Britain, at least, still was. You really aren't making a case for it being an easy, cheap job.

Yes, but I think they can basically still do it. If they hadn't been buying F-35s they'd presumably have pushed their stealth fighter projects to be finished by now, and what more is really required?

I think these trade routes etc. will stop mattering rather soon. Batteries are coming and once that's here the oil trade's gone, and then you have no need to export things to get something to trade for it, so in a decade or so none of this will matter.

International trade will go from being mandatory to optional, and thus become much less important.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#382

Post by rschneid »

hdevalence wrote: post #3

> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.

The consolidate audit trail regularly has millions of errors within a day... It's far from complete data; here's their latest report card:

https://catnmsplan.com/sites/default/files/2025-04/04.01.25-...

Also, CAT is run by CATNMS, LLC which was created in response to an SEC rule 613, however it is operated by the same consortium of SROs that it purports to provide oversight on...

All these layers of responsibility diffusion and a notable absence of penalties for failing to meet rule 613 guidelines mean that rule is little more than for show.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#383

Post by hattmall »

sebasv_ wrote: post #8
hdevalence wrote: post #3

> We don’t know who placed the trades. We don’t know what they knew. Actually, “we”, collectively, do know, because the SEC maintains an “XKEYSCORE for equities” called CAT. If there was interest, the government could know exactly who placed these trades. But the call (options) are coming from inside the house.

What would determine whether the SEC will investigate for insider trading? I would expect them to be shielded from executive pressure.

Questionable if there is anything to investigate, definitionally you can't inside trade an index fund.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#384

Post by tomp »

mindslight wrote: post #362
eastbound wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ll candidly assume that this is not a rhetorical question aimed at making me pass as a spoiled child, as is frequent with leftism: - AOC, known as “the squad” (!), has claimed the Congress has too many white males. President Macron said the same about the US tech sector, and he’s not even part of the extremists, so this issue permeates society. Basically everyone says white men should be fewer of them. This is a di…

> The more economic crisis there is is, the weaker the government, and the more women will need men So, to put a finer point on it - you decided that aiming to destroy the United States, and the Pax Americana underlying western civilization, was an appropriate response because AOC and Macron (who represent "everyone", in your apparent media diet) hurt your feelings. As a fellow man, this is just pathetic and entitled…

You’re forgetting that the previous government was losing at least 2 wars (in Ukraine and against Houties) and destroying the United States - trying to jail political opponents, subverting elections, destroying the country’s borders, erasing meritocracy, instituting censorship and ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#385

Post by tmcb »

klipt wrote: post #380
tmcb wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, certainly not by threatening to cut funding of humanities research grants. Otherwise they won't be able to conduct research such as this one... But I digress. The "Violence Against Women Act" is from 1994. Most statistics of that time pointed to a disproportionate amount of women being victims of domestic violence in comparison to men. I tried to find more recent statistics, but this is a very serious topic, so…

Well most serious work injuries happen to men, but if we had a "Work Safety For Men" act I bet you'd call that sexist. A law that fails to protect male victims of violence is equally sexist. The double standard is very visible. Maybe you should just admit that the left is blatantly the "party of women's interests" and give up on gaining men's votes.

The OSH Act was passed in 1970. I wonder why it doesn't have "for men" in its name...

Pardon my laziness, but this is the best graph I could find on the reduction of workplace-related injuries: https://fitsmallbusiness.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Info...

This policy was very effective, in the first place. I could eyeball a 70% reduction in the period between 1972 and 2019.

Can it be reduced it even further? Probably.

Would I find it off-puting if any piece of legislation is eventually passed that addresses a hypothetical issue that is disproportionally faced by men and helps reduce it even further? Certainly not.

(I, for one, would approve of the "No More Balls Stuck in the Cogs Act".)

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#386

Post by const_cast »

eastbound wrote: post #164
rapnie wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not just sad to watch . Would a country with a low-trust business environment be allowed to have such a huge mountain of government debt, and continue to have its currency be the world's reserve currency? A lot of sadness hinges on those considerations.

I know I’ll be downvoted but, since we’re going straight for scorched land, I prefer to voice it. I think most voters think like me “I still prefer Trump to a leftist government”: - Was there any need to be so extreme in terms of wokeness on the left? I am directly threatened by their program. Was there really any need to go for such a degree of revolution, ensuring everyone sensical would vote Trump? Could the left…

> making a few more concessions towards… omg, white males?

I'm a white man. We already HAVE all the concessions. There's nothing left to give us. I mean, we're not gonna implement anti-racist stuff against white men because there does not exist any racism against white men. Ergo, that policy is defacto implemented.

White men also don't need DEI because we actually already have DEI. Studies show upwards of 50% increase in likelihood of being hired if you're white.

I mean, look at Trump's cabinet and admin. Full of white men... because they are white men. A lot of them are very unqualified.

> It is true that savings needed to be done.

This administration will only raise the deficit.

Also, the left at least admitted that taxes on the ultra-wealthy need to be raised. The Trump administration is continuing to raise YOUR taxes while cutting theirs. So, to recap: higher taxes for you, a greater deficit, and the programs will be cut. Wow, it's a lose-lose-lose! Almost impressive how shit conservative policy is.

> This entire movement is a reactionary movement to the left.

I applaud your honesty in admitting the reactionary nature of American conservatives.

However, you're incorrect in saying they're reacting to the left. They're not. They're reacting to a made-up version of the left. One formed and imagined through decades of conservative propaganda. One where the left are communists, baby eaters, and reptilians - not the reality, where the democratic party is a right-leaning ultra-capitalist party.

> Do we agree that, staying closed-minded as they are, the left will resume public spendings by the trillions the moment they step into power? Do we agree that the left is a direct threat to meritocracy, stability of government, men in marriage, men at work, a direct threat to men’s financial stability, and that no-one on the left cares even a little what others-than-them feel?

Uh, no.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#387

Post by mindslight »

tomp wrote: post #384
mindslight wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The more economic crisis there is is, the weaker the government, and the more women will need men So, to put a finer point on it - you decided that aiming to destroy the United States, and the Pax Americana underlying western civilization, was an appropriate response because AOC and Macron (who represent "everyone", in your apparent media diet) hurt your feelings. As a fellow man, this is just pathetic and entitled…

You’re forgetting that the previous government was losing at least 2 wars (in Ukraine and against Houties) and destroying the United States - trying to jail political opponents, subverting elections, destroying the country’s borders, erasing meritocracy, instituting censorship and ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

Those topics weren't in the scope of the original discussion and I'm not really interested in litigating partisan entertainment propaganda based around taking shreds of truth (at best) and blowing them out of proportion.

The large scale facts are that under the previous administration we had working relationships with our allies, mostly functional executive agencies (aka law enforcement), and the US (ie USD) was seen as a source of stability. Meanwhile the current administration's actions are indistinguishable from a foreign power doing its best to destroy our country - we are now isolated from our allies (and even seen as hostile!), the ideal of rule of law has been replaced by brazenly corrupt rule by law, and we're staring down dedollarization.

Smarten up, quick.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#388

Post by tomp »

mindslight wrote: post #387
tomp wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re forgetting that the previous government was losing at least 2 wars (in Ukraine and against Houties) and destroying the United States - trying to jail political opponents, subverting elections, destroying the country’s borders, erasing meritocracy, instituting censorship and ignoring Supreme Court rulings.

Those topics weren't in the scope of the original discussion and I'm not really interested in litigating partisan entertainment propaganda based around taking shreds of truth (at best) and blowing them out of proportion. The large scale facts are that under the previous administration we had working relationships with our allies, mostly functional executive agencies (aka law enforcement), and the US (ie USD) was seen…

“My side is the truth, your side is partisan propaganda.”

Bottom line is, people see goals / intentions differently, especially in politics!

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#389

Post by const_cast »

eastbound wrote: post #226
master-lincoln wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What left are you talking about? The Democratic Party in the USA would be seen as neo-liberals too from outside the US. Calling it "the left" just shows how delusional the society in the USA seems to have become...

> The Democratic Party in the USA would be seen as neo-liberals too from outside the US Incorrect: This is an old argument from the left to pretend that US leftism isn’t very left. Truth: The US government is in debt of 6 trillion per year, which makes it the most powerful government of the world. The right’s “Atlas Shrugged” vision is to have a very lean government, as in, weak and powerless as possible. Conclusion:…

> The right’s “Atlas Shrugged” vision is to have a very lean government, as in, weak and powerless as possible.

This is objectively not true of the right's actions. If you read Project 2025 or just look at the legislation/EOs passed, the right is currently trying to expand the power of the president to unprecedented levels. In addition, they're trying to undermine the checks and balances of the courts such that the government can make greater decisions faster.

This isn't a small government, it's teetering on fascism. The fascism analogs only grow greater when you here Trump speak of an enemy within, who must be eliminated. When he speaks as if he is the One True answer to every problem facing the US. Trump-ism is become more akin to a cult than a political platform, many people just following Trump because they view him a God. It's a bit spooky. It's very difficult to not draw parallels to fascist leaders of the past.

> Conclusion: The American left wing proposes to build a government bigger than any socialist country in the world.

Delusional, sorry. If you think the democrats, the ultra-capitalist right-leaning party, want to create a socialist country you are just delusional. I don't know how to help you there because it's just not in touch with reality.

There's, like, 2 representatives in all of the Democratic party who could maybe kind of be consider democratic-socialists. And there's a better chance of hell freezing over than those 2 convincing the other hundreds to go their way.

After a certain point, we have to come back down to Earth and acknowledge what is actually going on, instead of whatever we have allowed our minds to concoct.

Re: $70M in 60 Seconds: How Insider Info Helped Someone 28x Their Money

#390

Post by mopsi »

Ray20 wrote: post #279
multjoy wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re literally fighting for their lives. Nobody wants elections in wartime, not least because polling stations become targets. You need to lay off the MAGA talking points.

>Nobody wants elections in wartime THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want. >not least because polling stations become targets. I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candi…

The only likely candidate close to Zelenskyy in popularity is Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That's not a person who sees surrender as an option.

All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.

Post reply on HN