Reddittors vs Wall Street

[plodder]

All of us have relied on the state at some point, some of us quite heavily. This is a boringly normal thing to do.

Things are not equitable. If there was only some long-established method of taking from the top 25% and redistributing to the bottom 25%, a method that's used around the world and is seen as commonplace, a method proven to work across decades and across a range of economies.

The fact that sh.t-hole Britain chooses not to do this well-known method isn't a reflection of the method itself. Instead of calling for revolution, why not call for long term fiscal distribution? While you're at it you could also call for more equitable schooling, more equitable healthcare and an increase in the minimum wage.

That doesn't preclude me from pointing out that if the philosophy of our whole economy insists that we all need to be independent and rational economic actors, then it seems somewhat counter productive to prevent rational individuals having a fair crack at a hugely important and individual economic endeavour.

Maybe we should just break up the financial services companies in order to ensure that, say, 75% of money invested is by SME investment firms. If we're serious about capitalism, that is. If we're just interested in propping up kleptocrats then fair enough.

[lpm]

I think proposals need to be run through the Sheldrake test. How would Sheldrake respond? He's more representative of the country than we are.

He'd say all this is driven by the jealousy of the left and we'd rather have a lose-lose. Based on this episode it would be hard to counter. Politics is the art of the possible and you're a hell of a long way from the possible.

I think I'd get my proposals through the dud UK political system across the next 30 years. Sheldrake, like the electorate overall, would accept redistribution and higher investment in education etc, even if not personally voting for it.

[plodder]

We're currently heading out of the back end of idealised capitalism into the bland corporate world of the Alien films. That's the art of the possible for you. You can have whatever you want, as long as it's on Amazon...

[Millennie Al]

It doesn't make a jot of difference what you do with your money - it's such an inconsequential proportion of the net wealth that you've actually helped create that you might as well spend it.

Of course it makes a difference. If I spend 50p on a chocolate bar, I get to enjoy it. That makes a lot more difference to me than you spending £1000 on a holiday, or some billionaire spending £20,000,000 on a new yacht.

The Earth's population is over 7 billion. Why do you think you are so special that you should be of consequence?

[Millennie Al]

Things are not equitable. If there was only some long-established method of taking from the top 25% and redistributing to the bottom 25%, a method that's used around the world and is seen as commonplace, a method proven to work across decades and across a range of economies.

We're going to introduce income tax? How shocking!

[Herainestold]

Things are not equitable. If there was only some long-established method of taking from the top 25% and redistributing to the bottom 25%, a method that's used around the world and is seen as commonplace, a method proven to work across decades and across a range of economies.

We're going to introduce income tax? How shocking!

Only for the middle classes and poorer. Rich people have loopholes and tax lawyers.

[plodder]

It doesn't make a jot of difference what you do with your money - it's such an inconsequential proportion of the net wealth that you've actually helped create that you might as well spend it.

Of course it makes a difference. If I spend 50p on a chocolate bar, I get to enjoy it. That makes a lot more difference to me than you spending £1000 on a holiday, or some billionaire spending £20,000,000 on a new yacht.

The Earth's population is over 7 billion. Why do you think you are so special that you should be of consequence?

It only makes a difference because you don’t value yourself realistically. In an equitable world you would be the one spending £1000 on a holiday and there would be fewer billionaires with £20M yachts. And if you want to bring the £3bn without sanitation due to corruption and iniquity then please go ahead and explain how the financial services sector is helping them.

[plodder]

It doesn't make a jot of difference what you do with your money - it's such an inconsequential proportion of the net wealth that you've actually helped create that you might as well spend it.

Of course it makes a difference. If I spend 50p on a chocolate bar, I get to enjoy it. That makes a lot more difference to me than you spending £1000 on a holiday, or some billionaire spending £20,000,000 on a new yacht.

The Earth's population is over 7 billion. Why do you think you are so special that you should be of consequence?

It only makes a difference because you don’t value yourself realistically. In an equitable world you would be the one spending £1000 on a holiday and there would be fewer billionaires with £20M yachts. And if you want to bring the 3bn people without sanitation due to corruption and iniquity into the conversation, then please go ahead and explain how the financial services sector is helping them.

[Gfamily]

Court case coming?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56106824

[lpm]

That guy is going to be sued for the next decade. Presumably he made enough to cut a few deals.

Interesting that his employer - Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance - is getting sued as well. They'll be done for failure to supervise. The regulations are supposed to prevent licenced brokers like Keith Gill from stock recommendations and secret trading, and as his employer they could be liable. Would be harsh, how could they have known he had other identities such as "Roaring Kitty" and "DeepFuckingValue"?

[Herainestold]

That guy is going to be sued for the next decade. Presumably he made enough to cut a few deals.

Interesting that his employer - Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance - is getting sued as well. They'll be done for failure to supervise. The regulations are supposed to prevent licenced brokers like Keith Gill from stock recommendations and secret trading, and as his employer they could be liable. Would be harsh, how could they have known he had other identities such as "Roaring Kitty" and "DeepFuckingValue"?

So he gets sued and the hedge fund bros get away with it. Talk about a rigged system.

[lpm]

Which hedge funds do you want to sue?

Senvest Management, who cashed out during the bubble and made $700m profit on GameStop?

Silver Lake, who played a blinder on AMC convertibles?

Union Square Park Capital Management? They were one of the top performing hedge funds in January thanks to the meme bubble.

Jason Mudrick who made about $500m on AMC?

These hedge funds all have very deep pockets you can reach into with a successful lawsuit, but what could you sue them for? It's not like Keith Gill where there's a plausible potential route to seize some of his winnings - conspiring to talk up a stock price is illegal.

[plodder]

Hooray for these heroes, hoovering up wealth. Hooray.

[Bird on a Fire]

hoovering up wealth

Ahhh, so that's what they're always doing with those rolled-up twenties in their noses. I did wonder.

[Martin Y]

Hooray for these heroes, hoovering up wealth. Hooray.

No, no, hooray for the little* guys who found a way to beat** them at their own game by doing something nobody thought of before***.

[Bird on a Fire]

There's a lot of anecdotes flying around, but as all this data is publicly available it surely should be possible to look at when the majority of low-volume buys and sells took place, and see whether big wins or big losses were the rule.

Has anyone seen such a thing?

[Bird on a Fire]

going up again lol

[El Pollo Diablo]

So, to try to understand, reddit hates short selling and in order to stop it, they put the share price up to a point where short selling is extremely attractive?

[plodder]

So, to try to understand, reddit hates short selling and in order to stop it, they put the share price up to a point where short selling is extremely attractive?

Yes. And then they don’t sell their tiny holdings, thus shafting the short sellers.

[Bird on a Fire]

The other thing to remember is that short-selling is a time-limited deal.

The coke-fuelled w.nkers of Wall Street are betting that the price will go down to $x by next Friday, not just at some point in the future. So as long as enough autistic basement-dwelling neckbeards hold onto their single stocks for a fortnight, the cocaine-fuelled w.nkers end up sobbing bitterly into their overpriced vintage champagne.

Will be interesting to see if the trading exchanges prevent sales of the stock again, like they did last time (the share price would have reached thousands of dollars otherwise). Last time around it was at least a fairly novel situation, but if they do it again it will definitely look like circling the wagons to prevent the barbarians at the gate getting a home run.

[lpm]

The institutional investors who bought years ago will be off-loading as fast as they can. There are plenty of sellers. But all Ponzi schemes run out of buyers.

[plodder]

Well, until the taxpayers bail them out, get nothing in return, and simmer in loathing for a generation.