Re: "Gamestonk", UBI would lead to massive economic bubbles. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15155007
AFAIK wrote:@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.


Indeed. In fact it is the trend. Buying video games, DVDs and things like that has been moving online for a while now. Unless Gamestop move with the times it seems destined to fail. Which means those playing this silly little game are also destined to lose. Or the one who played late anyways. So perhaps you are right about Wallstreets plans. But it is legal and if the shareholders had voted to sink the titanic those who financed Gamestop would have lost. Which means there needs to be legislation on this to stop if from happening.

It may well be a contradiction in Capitalism but until the government stop taking Wallstreet cash, we can expect the fallout of these practices in the next crash.
#15155008
Crantag wrote: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.


I am struggling to understand your position here. Burry is the reason for this thread. He is completely relevant. You made a claim that shareholders bankrupt businesses and this quote supports that. Not buy buying or selling shares (shorts and longs) but by dodgy business practices. Clearly the idea was to buy shares cheap, get people to buy them so demand goes up and then get the business to buy them off you at the inflated price. That would have been a bad business practice and hurt those who finance Gamestop because money would have gone out of Gamestop and into Burrys pocket.
#15155009
B0ycey wrote:I am struggling to understand your position here. Burry is the reason for this thread. He is completely relevant. You made a claim that shareholders bankrupt businesses and this quote supports that. Not buy buying or selling shares (shorts and longs) but by dodgy business practices. Clearly the idea was to buy shares cheap, get people to buy them so demand goes up and then get the business to buy them off you at the inflated price. That would have been a bad business practice and hurt those who finance Gamestop because money would have gone out of Gamestop and into Burrys pocket.

Sure, Burry started it. But you want a figurehead to pin it on. Burry probably sold out, before it went for the real ticked up. And I don't want to repeat the name anymore, to exalt some douche bag. That guy you named was a part of the phenomenon which occurred, but he actually probably sold out early, which you would know if you bothered to read the press clippings.
#15155011
Crantag wrote:Sure, Burry started it. But you want a figurehead to pin it on. Burry probably sold out, before it went for the real ticked up. And I don't want to repeat the name anymore, to exalt some douche bag. That guy you named was a part of the phenomenon which occurred, but he actually probably sold out early, which you would know if you bothered to read the press clippings.


He sold out early to short the shares. If the plan was to get Gamestop to buy the shares back off him then clearly by the letter he sent that didn't work. I don't know what the strategy was. But by reading up on this Burry has the potential to lose $15 million of his original investment at this is it. But he wouldn't even lose all that as he sold out. The idea of these hedge funders losing $billions is based on GME current value. That is now falling quickly whilst those who played this silly game are selling out.

Basically all I am trying to say in Wallstreet won't lose here.
#15155013
B0ycey wrote:He sold out early to short the shares. If the plan was to get Gamestop to buy the shares back off him then clearly by the letter he sent that didn't work. I don't know what the strategy was. But by reading up on this Burry has the potential to lose $15 million of his original investment at this is it. But he wouldn't even lose all that as he sold out. The idea of these hedge funders losing $billions is based on GME current value. That is now falling quickly whilst those who played this silly game are selling out.

Basically all I am trying to say in Wallstreet won't lose here.

Sorry dude, I haven't kept up on the day to day with this. And, I've sorta been on the bender.

Interesting points, and maybe I will try to update my knowledge before I chime back in. ``
#15155014
@Crantag I quoted that article to back up your claims that the short sellers wanted to bankrupt the company. Maybe you could put more effort into your posts and save us from all this back and forth.

No one took offense to that article being posted in the other thread.
#15155022
My disappointment is that things like this won't be happening very often.
I am not a fan of these "hedge fund managers". These are people that for the most part, they don't really give much of a benefit to society. As far as I am concerned, they are just slightly above scammers and con artists.
At least scammers and con artist go to jail when caught, these people get a slap in the hand, a 10k fine on a company worth millions or even billions and then their managers, executives and officers end up on regulatory chairs in the government to help their old pals. Fucking disgusting.
#15155026
AFAIK wrote:@Crantag I quoted that article to back up your claims that the short sellers wanted to bankrupt the company. Maybe you could put more effort into your posts and save us from all this back and forth.

No one took offense to that article being posted in the other thread.

Burry clearly wanted to do the vampire squid thing on Gamestop, but it equally clearly didn't work (hence the letter), and it equally clearly has nothing to do with shorting the stocks per se. You can't bankrupt a company just by betting that its stock price will go down rather than up.
#15155087
AFAIK wrote:@Crantag I quoted that article to back up your claims that the short sellers wanted to bankrupt the company. Maybe you could put more effort into your posts and save us from all this back and forth.

No one took offense to that article being posted in the other thread.

Yeah, I was pretty drunk last night, and was having difficulty forming words properly.

I felt terrible for questioning Pometkin and his sainted wisdom, and I think I might have mistook the name of that guy for some other guy, or maybe not. I'll take more of a back seat here, until I do proper research, as this is actually an important story, and I don't want to mislead anymore (if I did) by way of laziness and ignorance.

Pometkin's point is one I have considered, about the effect of shorts on the market price. I impulsively think short sellers do effect the price, but I don't really have a clear and constructed argument about it. But yeah, I was sort of out of line with my 2 am posts before.
#15155106
For a number of years there has been a trend of ‘democratization’ of financial services, which basically means making banking and investing easier through the use of technology. This includes things like online banking, lower and more transparent fees, ETFs, roboadvisors, a greater use of technology and specifically apps and chatrooms. Robinhood was the latest iteration of this long-term trend.
#15155108
alyas wrote:For a number of years there has been a trend of ‘democratization’ of financial services, which basically means making banking and investing easier through the use of technology. This includes things like online banking, lower and more transparent fees, ETFs, roboadvisors, a greater use of technology and specifically apps and chatrooms. Robinhood was the latest iteration of this long-term trend.

There is also an opposite trend. How much do you pay for your checking account? What's your minimum balance? Banks rake in quite a lot on these account fees.
#15155170
Crantag wrote:Pometkin's point is one I have considered, about the effect of shorts on the market price. I impulsively think short sellers do effect the price, but I don't really have a clear and constructed argument about it.


AFAIK it does.

The short seller borrows the shares from his broker, who has them from other customer accounts or other brokerage firms. Then he immediately sells the shares and promises to buy them back after a certain time. The receipts go into his margin account.

Also, the stock price is relevant for companies. I.e. for equity financing and mergers & acquisitions.
#15155227
Potemkin wrote:You can't bankrupt a company just by betting that its stock price will go down rather than up.


some say it can!

    Naked short selling is often in the news today and is criticized by journalists and other pundits who claim that naked short sellers allied with "rumor mongers" caused the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. They cite the large "failure to deliver" for a stock as evidence of naked short sales days after the stock had dropped. Although the naked short sales happened after the collapse, they still hold onto the idea that those after-the-event naked short sales caused the collapse. [1][1]

as I can grasp what happened with naked-shorts is market evolution so it could provide more room for wider gambling tho primary as intention for liquidity, what as mechanism is proving to be too great risk to continue breathing, still gaps could be found and it seems as someone is trying to use them for new crash!?

    Madoff’s rule ensured that market makers (Madoff) could, among other things, engage in so-called “naked short selling.” To sell “naked” is to sell stock that one does not actually possess. That is “phantom stock,” according to the SEC Chairman and many others.

    Sometimes, short sellers (who profit when shares lose value) offload massive amounts of phantom stock to drive down prices, destroy pubic companies, or even crash the market. That is why there used to be restrictions.

    Madoff also obtained an exemption allowing market makers to sell short on a down tick, which made it easier for unscrupulous hedge funds to drive down stock prices. ...

    A few months ago, this naked short selling was implicated–by numerous academics, the U.S. Chamber of Chamber of Commerce, the Secretary of the Treasury, the CEOs of Wall Street’s biggest banks, respected law firms, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and numerous congressmen – in the near total collapse of the American financial system.
    The SEC has not prosecuted anybody for this. After all, there is an “exception.”

    https://www.deepcapture.com/2009/01/bernard-madoff-the-mafia-and-naked-short-selling/


    The reason for allowing market makers to do naked shorting was simply to provide short-term liquidity for a stock. The assumption was that the market maker would quickly locate the shares and close out the naked position. In reality, however, much of the naked short selling was done for manipulation and not liquidity ...
    https://globaleconomicwarfare.com/2012/07/madoffs-crime-of-staying-naked-short/

on other hand this is seen as normal by the proponents of the last naked short selling scandal, but I'll ask them whould they feel the same if the market plunder in chaos!? tho they wouldnt care, for them is the opportunity what matters nomather how Brokerage Betting is done i.e. "Imagine that Wall Street is a big building, Robinhood is basically letting you into the lobby" [1] not that I wont to say they are the prime culprits anyhow for the ponzy casino called western stock exchanges driven by derivatives, but its obvious that someone is using the mechanism for new crash, is this really activist driven movement as Occupy Wallstreet x2, or is domestic anarchist terrorism, I am not sure! in the end who will benefit if there is reset!? I think the globalists who will impose new rules and cashless society!!!

https://youtu.be/-EtlN2ZrvKI

:roll: If they've already had the first done, then[…]

They didn't start it, not even close. When was t[…]

Shooting of Adam Toledo

Not the same at all. I saw the story on ABC, CBS[…]

The point is that women have to have limited opti[…]