[Wulfschilde]

There's some debate on this but it's widely agreed that giving housing loans to people who otherwise wouldn't have qualified for those loans (most of whom were the usual suspect minorities) caused the 2008 housing bubble.

Observing the recent "Gamestonk" debacle, something occurred to me. Our rulers seem intent to undemocratically push through basic income, while preventing many people from working, even though the poor are already getting welfare. Maybe they want to believe they're saving the environment or something. But a basic income society is going to be dependent upon a really stable and sophisticated economic system to avoid turning into hyper-inflation. This presumably means stonks. And what do people who didn't earn money often do with it? Not all of them of course but enough of them that it can cause a problem will take that money and they speculate, they gamble, they flip houses. The ones doing drugs are arguably less of a problem than they are. Even though most of them will lose that money, they know more is coming in later on and it's fun for them to try, so why not?

With this in mind, "Gamestonk" is probably the first of many such events and not a one-off. The housing bubble happened because the loans were there for housing - UBI would open this kind of behavior to literally everything that can be bought with money.

One thing they might try to do then is limit the UBI to specific things. Just as SNAP is limited to certain purchases, our UBI might be divided up into food, transportation, recreation. But this would only lead to widespread black markets (what we currently call welfare fraud) except that everyone would have a reason to be doing it. And the greater the share of our income that becomes micromanaged UBI, the greater the black markets, reliance upon emerging cryptocurrencies etc.

Our rulers in Davos have been described as "billionaires talking to millionaires about what ordinary people need". It's my impression that these billionaires are often workaholics who do not understand how dangerous free time and free money can be to certain kinds of people because none of them are those kinds of people. There is nothing that stops smart people from creating bubbles and acting according to mistaken impressions. It's arguably the entire history of mankind since powerless people are by definition never the ones who were making the wrong choices.

[blackjack21]

With this in mind, "Gamestonk" is probably the first of many such events and not a one-off.

Well, one of the interesting things to fall out of GameStop is that it has revealed the massive conflict of interest of "Robinhood." Keeping in mind the Robin Hood of myth was said to have taken from the rich and given to the poor, this service appears to operate in exactly the opposite way. It sells the trades of Robinhood traders to the market makers themselves.

Robinhood’s Customers Are Hedge Funds Like Citadel. Its Users Are the Product.
What people are getting in exchange for trades with no commissions is that the market makers themselves are paying for the info.

Payment for order flow is a wonderful system that makes a lot of money for everyone involved, except the consumer.

Hopefully, Millennials are going to wake up to the idea that free can often mean something quite sinister.

"If the service is free, you are the product. Robinhood users thought the service was accountable to them, but actually it exists to serve giant Wall Street institutions like Citadel and other market makers,” J.E. Karla, editor of the business newsletter Contention, told Motherboard. “They will suicide bomb their own business models to protect the real powers from the consequences of their internal contradictions. When a system approaches a terminal crisis, its institutions will break their own rules to suppress elements that threaten the system’s continued viability. That’s what’s happening here. This specific episode may be over in a week or two, but it's a symptom of something very ominous."

[Igor Antunov]

Robinhood for example exists to sell order flows to hedge funds so they can get ahead of you and bet against you. It's a normie killzone. Stay away normies.

This is why the only way to get ahead in the system is to either join it (i.e become abnormie) or topple it with a volent revolution. You're not going to vote wealthy people's money away. The representative politicians that suckle their teet are not going to do this for you. That's not how the real world works. It's all rigged. They give you the illusion of financial flexibility. But you're actually on an enclosed reservation.

[AFAIK]

Two other factors that contributed to GME being pumped are the lack of gambling outlets such as sports, casinos and poker games to bet on and the ability to take part in the downfall of a hedge fund. I'm sure there's plenty of people willing to sacrifice <$500 on GME just to see what happens. If they make money great, if not it's no big deal and if some billionaires lose their shirts in the process then it's money well spent.

[pugsville]

Capitalism leads to massive economic bubbles.

Nothing can make bubbles better or bigger than Capitalism.

[Steve_American]

There's some debate on this but it's widely agreed that giving housing loans to people who otherwise wouldn't have qualified for those loans (most of whom were the usual suspect minorities) caused the 2008 housing bubble.

Observing the recent "Gamestonk" debacle, something occurred to me. Our rulers seem intent to undemocratically push through basic income, while preventing many people from working, even though the poor are already getting welfare.

I stopped reading right here.
I retired to live in Thailand and so I admit that I may be wrong. However, 'welfare' is funded by states. The Fed. funds little of it. All states have seen their revenues fall and their payments rise. So, I really, really doubt that the mass of the people who need welfare now are getting it. I heard that many have never yet gotten a dollar from unemployment insurance in some states. I have heard that millions can't feed their children. IF welfare was doing the job that is needed, then SNAP would be giving food stamps to those millions who can't feed their children.

Maybe they want to believe they're saving the environment or something. But a basic income society is going to be dependent upon a really stable and sophisticated economic system to avoid turning into hyper-inflation. This presumably means stonks. And what do people who didn't earn money often do with it? Not all of them of course but enough of them that it can cause a problem will take that money and they speculate, they gamble, they flip houses. The ones doing drugs are arguably less of a problem than they are. Even though most of them will lose that money, they know more is coming in later on and it's fun for them to try, so why not?

With this in mind, "Gamestonk" is probably the first of many such events and not a one-off. The housing bubble happened because the loans were there for housing - UBI would open this kind of behavior to literally everything that can be bought with money.

One thing they might try to do then is limit the UBI to specific things. Just as SNAP is limited to certain purchases, our UBI might be divided up into food, transportation, recreation. But this would only lead to widespread black markets (what we currently call welfare fraud) except that everyone would have a reason to be doing it. And the greater the share of our income that becomes micromanaged UBI, the greater the black markets, reliance upon emerging cryptocurrencies etc.

Our rulers in Davos have been described as "billionaires talking to millionaires about what ordinary people need". It's my impression that these billionaires are often workaholics who do not understand how dangerous free time and free money can be to certain kinds of people because none of them are those kinds of people. There is nothing that stops smart people from creating bubbles and acting according to mistaken impressions. It's arguably the entire history of mankind since powerless people are by definition never the ones who were making the wrong choices./quote]
IMHO, a BI is needed now. At least$1000/mo. per adult and likely some per child also.
However, see my thread on why a MMT JGP would be better in normal times because it gives nothing for free to anyone. It pays people to do socially useful work, like plant trees. It provides a job to all who want one, but it does demand a minimum ability to do the job. In a pandemic it can be a job to stay home and not infect others.
. . . Because it pays a socially inclusive wage, this sets the new min. wage that private comp. will need to pay to get people to work for them instead of the JGP. This will drive up all wages under and likely near the (say) $20/hr that the JGP is paying. This will take money from big wealthy corps. by making them pay their workers more. This will help small businesses because their customers will have more money to spend on things besides food, rent, health insurance, utility bills, etc.

.

[Wulfschilde]

Robinhood for example exists to sell order flows to hedge funds so they can get ahead of you and bet against you. It's a normie killzone. Stay away normies.

This is why the only way to get ahead in the system is to either join it (i.e become abnormie) or topple it with a volent revolution. You're not going to vote wealthy people's money away. The representative politicians that suckle their teet are not going to do this for you. That's not how the real world works. It's all rigged. They give you the illusion of financial flexibility. But you're actually on an enclosed reservation.

It's not just this in regarding to GameStonk though. Trump supporters in the US were promised a revolution, instead we got a massive bubble in a brick and mortar game retailer's stock. Supposedly, buying the stock would fuck over "hedgies" for the crime of short selling. Not only is short selling not a crime but in elevating a stock worth an estimated 20 up to 370 or whatever it got up to, they created the best short selling opportunity in decades at least. It might have been the best short selling opportunity since the Rothschildes hoaxed the UK into thinking they had been beaten by Napoleon.

Ultimately this did nothing to hedge funds, short sellers or whatever the sudden and temporary alliance of buyers thought it would do but it did make less than 20 people roughly $20 billion in a week while those pretending it was a rebellion probably lost whatever they put in.

@Steve_American, how did you manage to quote me if you had stopped reading right there?

[Rancid]

With this in mind, "Gamestonk" is probably the first of many such events and not a one-off.

It's not the first of its kind. Short Squeezes happen all the time. It's just that this one got more attention since it was triggered by retail investors on reddit.

Hedge funds and investment banks now have to factor in the unpredictability of quasi-organized retail investors fucking with them, but it doesn't really put much of a kink in their activities. All it means is that they need to be more conservative with taking on short positions.

In otherwords, this gamestop fiasco isn't as big of a problem for anyone except the people that have lost money on a bad bet.

[late]

1) There's some debate on this but it's widely agreed that giving housing loans to people who otherwise wouldn't have qualified for those loans (most of whom were the usual suspect minorities) caused the 2008 housing bubble.

2) Observing the recent "Gamestonk" debacle, something occurred to me. Our rulers seem intent to undemocratically push through basic income, while preventing many people from working, even though the poor are already getting welfare. Maybe they want to believe they're saving the environment or something. But a basic income society is going to be dependent upon a really stable and sophisticated economic system to avoid turning into hyper-inflation. This presumably means stonks. And what do people who didn't earn money often do with it? Not all of them of course but enough of them that it can cause a problem will take that money and they speculate, they gamble, they flip houses. The ones doing drugs are arguably less of a problem than they are. Even though most of them will lose that money, they know more is coming in later on and it's fun for them to try, so why not?

3) With this in mind, "Gamestonk" is probably the first of many such events and not a one-off.



4) There is nothing that stops smart people from creating bubbles and acting according to mistaken impressions.

1) Go learn before you waste our time. The cause was a combo plate of deregulation, a failure to regulate what was left to regulate, and an extraordinary criminality among some players.
https://nymag.com/strategist/article/be ... crash.html
I'd add the Big Short to that list. It's prob showing it age at this point, but I liked it a lot. If you want one stop shopping, try After the Music Stopped.

2) Is that a conspiracy theory? Or do you have some facts about a move to create a Universal Basic Income I was unaware of...? Btw, loved the hyperinflation bit, nothing says I don't have a clue like talking out of your ass.

3) Naw, there's a bunch of people in DC looking to discourage that sort of thing, like Yellen.

4) That's a perennial. When volatility gets too high, we clamp down on it. When things look good, we relax the rules and it's girls gone wild. One thing that would help is to reduce political influence among regulators, and kill the revolving the door that discourages regulators from regulating.

[XogGyux]

It's not the first of its kind. Short Squeezes happen all the time. It's just that this one got more attention since it was triggered by retail investors on reddit.

Hedge funds and investment banks now have to factor in the unpredictability of quasi-organized retail investors fucking with them, but it doesn't really put much of a kink in their activities. All it means is that they need to be more conservative with taking on short positions.

In otherwords, this gamestop fiasco isn't as big of a problem for anyone except the people that have lost money on a bad bet.

Somehow I doubt they will have to "factor the unpredictability of quasi-organized retail investors". I suspect in one way or another they will be regulated out of revlevance Call me a cynic.

[Crantag]

When I was about 8, back in about 1992, I walked into a Gamestop on my birthday, and my dad bought me Command and Conquer. He paid with a check, I remember that bit. The people bidding up the stock have memories like this. But the wallstreet fucktards are painted as victims, for their failed bid to bankrupt the company. Let's you know where we stand as a country here.

[Potemkin]

When I was about 8, back in about 1992, I walked into a Gamestop on my birthday, and my dad bought me Command and Conquer. He paid with a check, I remember that bit. The people bidding up the stock have memories like this. But the wallstreet fucktards are painted as victims, for their failed bid to bankrupt the company. Let's you know where we stand as a country here.

"Bid to bankrupt the company"? When someone shorts a company's stock, they are merely placing a bet on whether or not that stock will lose value (they're betting it will). This has absolutely no effect on whether or not the shares will lose value in reality. Why would it? All the shares are being traded on the secondary market. If you walk into a bookies and bet that a certain horse will lose a race, does this cause that horse to lose its race?

I can't believe that I, a revolutionary communist, am defending fucking Wall Street from the criticisms of a right-winger. But that's where we are right now....

[B0ycey]

But the wallstreet fucktards are painted as victims, for their failed bid to bankrupt the company. Let's you know where we stand as a country here.

The real value of shares are in the dividend it pays out.

The fucktards in Wallstreet can't bankrupt anyone. Shares are an investment in a company. Selling shares just means that whatever investment has been put into the company has changed hands. If nobody buys them you retain that investment. So this whole affair isn't going to affect Gamestop but those who bet. Wallstreet ultimate win because the shares should have shorted because they weren't worth the price they were sold at. Although they will only win once they buy back at its uninflated price. When everyone bought Gamestop shares the price skyrocketed. In reality that wasn't Wallstreet losing money but losing a bet. And perhaps many on Wallstreet bet on the stocks rising when they saw what was going on. So unless people want to retain their shares forever they will only lose out eventually. Gamestop shares may never retain their actual true value. That's OK. It just means Wallstreet won't buy them or play with them again. And should Gamestop go bankrupt, all shareholders lose everything. But bankruptcy is in regards to shopping habits not who owns what.

[Crantag]

"Bid to bankrupt the company"? When someone shorts a company's stock, they are merely placing a bed on whether or not that stock will lose value (they're betting it will). This has absolutely no effect on whether or not the shares will lose value in reality. Why would it? All the shares are being traded on the secondary market. If you walk into a bookies and bet that a certain horse will lose a race, does this cause that horse to lose its race?

I can't believe that I, a revolutionary communist, am defending fucking Wall Street from the criticisms of a right-winger. But that's where we are right now....

My god dude, you are the last person I would have expected of naivete.

[Crantag]

I am looking to manufacture bricks from the earth, to sell for food, if I didn't have my food stamps card.

I am at my lowest, and I am not going to be here to tell you how to be a good capitalist.

I will stick by this. Short sellers directly and discriminately force companies in to bankruptcy. I will say this too. I don't give two shits, or three shits, about your wallstreet propaganda to say otherwise. I am not going to indulge a debate over this. The wallstreet short positions do move the market, and that is fucking that.

And I am not in the game. I am here in the Oregon mountains, trying to figure out which are the edible mushrooms, and if or not I can eat clay.

[AFAIK]

Shareholders have a lot of influence over companies and will pressure them to waste time, effort and money propping up stock prices and paying dividends even though it isn't in the interest of the company to allow them to extract wealth from it.

It seems Burry was well aware of this and was planning on having Gamestop to pay off his bet directly. From the other thread;

Burry’s play was to urge GameStop to use its cash to buy back stock, potentially retiring about half of its shares outstanding. In a sharply worded letter to GameStop’s board of directors, Burry called for the company to exhaust its $300 million buyback authorization. At the time of his letter GameStop’s entire market cap was just $300 million.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/antoinegar ... 32d9c6303b

The plan was to make Gamestop use its cash flow to pay out Burry's bet depriving it of funds to invest into the business or cover ongoing costs and increasing its risk of bankruptcy or downsizing.

The more I follow this story the more confused I get. If someone came up to me and said, "Y'know how you have $100k invested in GME? Well if you lend me your shares they'll be worth 50k in 2 weeks and the businesses cash reserves will also be depleted!" I'd tell them to fuck off but apparently city boys and Wall Streeters think it's a good deal.

[Crantag]

Shareholders have a lot of influence over companies and will pressure them to waste time, effort and money propping up stock prices and paying dividends even though it isn't in the interest of the company to allow them to extract wealth from it.

It seems Burry was well aware of this and was planning on having Gamestop to pay off his bet directly. From the other thread;



The plan was to make Gamestop use its cash flow to pay out Burry's bet depriving it of funds to invest into the business or cover ongoing costs and increasing its risk of bankruptcy or downsizing.

The more I follow this story the more confused I get. If someone came up to me and said, "Y'know how you have $100k invested in GME? Well if you lend me your shares they'll be worth 50k in 2 weeks and the businesses cash reserves will also be depleted!" I'd tell them to fuck off but apparently city boys and Wall Streeters think it's a good deal.

Sorry bro, you are a cool dude, not as cool as Pometkin, or maybe almost as cool, but you merely quote propaganda. The dude mentioned in the propaganda article you quoted is just a random nobody and I don't care about his name, and he was more or less playing a video game, which is more or less what the so called 'wall street traders' do.

[B0ycey]

@AFAIK

The shareholders own the business. So sure they can put pressure on it. And they know all the tricks in the game. So perhaps that quote justifies @Crantag claim that they have the power to bankrupt a company just like any bad owner can I guess. Because maybe that was the plan all along. If Gamestop has a buy back policy and you have the influence to execute that then whoever has financed that $300 million loses out. Which most likely is a bank. Basically this is a contradiction in Capitalism and another sign of an impending crash, especially if this practice is commonplace. More toxic loans. But even so, that doesn't change the fact who will win and lose on this bet.

[AFAIK]

@B0ycey I'm guessing investors feel Gamestop will be out of business within 3 years as sales move online so maybe forcing Gamestop to buy their shares is the best exit strategy.

@Crantag Burry is in charge of the hedge fund that shorted the stock. How is quoting the protagonist's stated plans propaganda?

[Crantag]

Burry also sold out in December, probably, according to the news coverage. You guys act smart, but can't even read a news article. I know who Burry is, and he is irrelevant. The news just seeks names. The same news media you exalt, describes him as probably having sold out his positions. And I don't give a shit about him, either.