Live data from Hacker News

The Battle of GameStop

paranoidenough.com

201–210 of 583 posts

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might got lucky or not, but your comment is very dangerous for the people who have no idea and haven't been in the field. FAANG compensation is not peasant to billions of people, so please don't do that.

I'd be interested in understanding how someone sharing their experience and opinion is dangerous.

Not sure if "dangerous" per se, but the OP's comment about having made millions leveraging on SPY and QQQ over the course of 100+ trades doesn't check out, given that a few days back, they created this throwaway account to complain about finding it hard to quit their job at Amazon because the pay is so good.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25878201

IOW, they're lying for Internet points.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#202
post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably all started in the mid-to-late 70s when leadership in the US essentially threw in the towel on trying to improve the nation and started dismantling the country for profit. Adam Curtis's Hypernormalization does a very good job of illustrating this overall trend as it was reflected in the zeitgeist.

“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room." -Socrates

Things change and different generations behave differently. Nevertheless, the parent complains about leadership behavior, not about children behavior.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#203
post #15

I've wrote this elsewhere. The thing that's clicked for me after reading the comments on wsb is that populism, amplified by the modern internet, is going to radically change the finance world in a similar way to how it radically changed our political landscape. These people aren't just investing in GME to enrich themselves. They are doing it to spite the people who they percieve as rigging the game. They are doing it…

Psychology has always been part of the market, and this event can be explained by Soros' theory of reflexivity - that the stock market leads the fundementals, not the other way around. Once you forgo the efficient market hypothesis (and it's never been more obvious how incorrect this is), this event makes more sense. Same as Tesla, momentum is a psychological event lead by a positive feedback loop.

why do you need to forgo the efficient market hypothesis? The market as a whole takes into account the psychology of people as well, because peole participating in the market do so.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#204
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is more like beanie babies all over again. Except now that its easier to trade its happening in stocks. Populism of a companies stock doesnt really change the performance of that company. GME will implode eventually and the newest suckers or WSB will be left holding the bag.

The difference is that our economy wasn't held together by beanie babies. A stock market crash has very wide ranging effects, not only to bankers but also retirees, blue collar workers, homeowners, new graduates and basically everyone else.

> A stock market crash has very wide ranging effects, not only to bankers but also retirees, blue collar workers, homeowners, new graduates and basically everyone else.

only has such an effect if those people who invested in the stock market has more than their risk tolerance invested.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You played a game, you played it well, and you won. Well done. But don't pretend that that means everyone can do it, because patently they can't: you won your bets, a bunch of other people lost theirs. No value that wouldn't otherwise have been created got made, you just shifted the balance of how the rewards are distributed in your favor, and away from someone else. As a system for distributing the benefits of econo…

If you believe that op played the game well, then he successfully took capital from less efficient companies and allocated it to new more efficient companies. This creates value.

is efficient the right word?

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#206
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t compare what happened with GME to the lottery at least not for the people who understood why they were doing what they were doing.

It's still a lottery. They didn't know if there would be enough real following or if most people were just trolling. Even if they estimated that well, they still had no idea where the peak was.

The problem with the lottery is the odds and the expected value, not the concept of risk and reward, which is present in all manner of investing.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#207
post #4

It's market hot potato/ponzi scheme. You buy in to capitalize on growth, funded by increased interest in the meme, and try to cash out before the meme isn't funny anymore.

This. Currently its GME, next comes BB and before that it was SPY / TSLA...

Are you just guessing it is BB because of recent price action?

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#208
post #144

I feel like a lot of the commenters here either never actually went on /r/wsb or are trying to glorify it with a narrative that is absolutely disconnected from the real thing. They are not somekind of community trying to "stick it to wall street", they are mostly just random people shitposting all the time, posting their gains and losses. Right now it's GME, before it was SPY/TSLA/NIO. No need to overthink it. Sure t…

But isn't that kind of the point of the discussion? A bunch of shitposters band together and manage to align themselves with someone with resources and interests to create a "movement" that is self-sustaining. The article makes parallelisms with the Capitol attack and other forms of self-fulfilling prophecies. Enough believers is the fuel, someone with resources makes a spark, things ignite.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#209
post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument is that we’re working to keep a roof over our heads now because we YOLOed through college. And while that doesn’t describe me, I had a lot of peers who partied through college, skipped classes, hardly worked, majored in women’s studies / art history / literature / etc and still managed to live in the dorms, buy daily lattes, have the latest iPhones, etc.

> partied through college, skipped classes, hardly worked, majored in women’s studies / art history / literature / Some of those things are not like the other. I studied computer science, plenty of people partied and as far as I can tell, people who studied humanities like literature had to work more. It was not easier major in terms of how much you have to work. I liked computer science, so I am always surprised abo…

The reality is that, 50 years ago, when only the smartest people attented colleges, a college degree used to be a proxy for aptitude (a combination of intelligence and willingness to work hard). It didn't matter that much what you studied, just having that college diploma meant that you're smart enough to be able to contribute in a non-trivial manner in any company, and will likely be heading for a managerial position a couple years in. Whereas now, with a huge percentage of population going into higher ed, the diploma means that you're within 60th percentile or somewhere around that, which is not what companies need.

Unfortunately, many young people and their parents didn't understand this dynamic of watering down and still believe that the degree opens a path to a better life, while the truth is, most people are just not talented enough to be employed into demanding and well-paying office positions that most of us here work in. The Universities are silently running a scam, taking advantage of the obliviousness of young people and their parents by selling them a way to waste 4 years of their lives in exchange for a lifetime of debt... It sounds really horrible. At least here in Europe education is free so you "only" spend 4 years doing things that won't help you in life later.

Luckily, the stories of people who graduated only to sell shoes or coffee are now prevalent enough to make the next generation more aware of the real value (or lack of thereof) of a degree in something non-commercial from an average university. In my family, I now see younger people more often deciding that higher ed is not for them and going straight into trades.

Re: The Battle of GameStop

#210
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They essentially drove one of wall streets very successful hedge funds of recent years to near failure they had to make a deal for an emergency investment today to stay afloat. I’d call that winning.

They will probably use the infusion of money to just ride out this raid and make a mint when the wsb bubble pops, which it inevitably will. To say that the hedge fund is "near failure" is the same as saying they did not fail. If they bridge this gap they win double.

I don't know. Just making the hedge fund managers shit their pants is good fun.
Post reply on HN