Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 362: Now With Diet Coke Button

(+) Yeah! (+)

That's also why I preferred Warren to Bernie, if I'm being honest.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

https://twitter.com/raadiating/status/1355213827969863681?s=19

it's very funny to me both that Warren posted a wall of text and that people are mad at her because they refuse to read or understand it

Just about the most on-brand stupid left twitter discourse all around

---

Inviso posted...

That's also why I preferred Warren to Bernie, if I'm being honest.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

it's very funny to me both that Warren posted a wall of text and that people are mad at her because they refuse to read or understand it

Just about the most on-brand stupid left twitter discourse all around

I think you're misunderstanding the issue.

It's not that Warren "posted a wall of text people don't understand", it's not hard to understand at all.

It's the same question I've had for others who think this entire situation with GameStop and Wall Street Bets is bad: Do you have a "solution" that will stop this that doesn't just move the needle in favor of Wall Street speculators at the detriment of the casual trader?

And do you think Warren is proposing otherwise?

Unless the "solution" prevents Wall Street from manipulating stocks as well, it will just continue to be fraudulent.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

It's the same question I've had for others who think this entire situation with GameStop and Wall Street Bets is bad: Do you have a "solution" that will stop this that doesn't just move the needle in favor of Wall Street speculators at the detriment of the casual trader?

And do you think Warren is proposing otherwise?

Unless the "solution" prevents Wall Street from manipulating stocks as well, it will just continue to be fraudulent.

Yes, her position is that all market manipulation is bad and should be stopped. She's correct. What is your specific issue?

If I have a criticism it's that she doesn't point out that wealthy investors are ALSO driving up GME's price, but the details are still out on that. So she could have come down harder but this is an argument about semantics and tone and not substance.

---

If you think wsb is market manipulation...

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

Yes, her position is that all market manipulation is bad and should be stopped. She's correct. What is your specific issue?

If I have a criticism it's that she doesn't point out that wealthy investors are ALSO driving up GME's price, but the details are still out on that. So she could have come down harder but this is an argument about semantics and tone and not substance.

I disagree, that's not even what I asked.

Read her letter.

What's a solution that fixes her concerns and who is likely to be affected more, professional Wall Street speculators and hedge funds or everyone else?

I'm focusing on the solution here. What can realistically be done to stop places like WSBs from sweeping up unsuspecting people into gambling on the stock market, and how will it affect how the entire system works?

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

If you think wsb is market manipulation...

How is it not? The act of playing the market causes the market to react. This is literally manipulating the markets. It's not as insidious as what Wall Street gets up to behind closed doors but the mechanism of action is identical. WSB has just crowdfunded the money and done it out in the open. Sure, it's better in the sense that it's easier to root for internet memelords than the big hedge funds, but it's still just an inherent structural problem.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

How is it not? The act of playing the market causes the market to react. This is literally manipulating the markets. It's not as insidious as what Wall Street gets up to behind closed doors but the mechanism of action is identical. WSB has just crowdfunded the money and done it out in the open. Sure, it's better in the sense that it's easier to root for internet memelords than the big hedge funds, but it's still just an inherent structural problem.

I don't mean this badly but playing the market is not what the term market manipulation is for. At its heart this is because people did due diligence. I mean if we just want to get rid of the stock market sure.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I disagree, that's not even what I asked.

Read her letter.

What's a solution that fixes her concerns and who is likely to be affected more, professional Wall Street speculators and hedge funds or everyone else?

I'm focusing on the solution here. What can realistically be done to stop places like WSBs from sweeping up unsuspecting people into gambling on the stock market, and how will it affect how the entire system works?

She's advocating for accountability and regulation of the market, literally what she always has been done, and since most of the market is the 1% that would absolutely affect the entire system more than regular people on WSB.

You are disagreeing with her framing being primarily on reddit and WSB, and on the big hedge funds second, which is fair rhetorical criticism. There's a fear that any solution would ONLY impact WSB but given context I don't believe that's what she's advocating for at all.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I don't mean this badly but playing the market is not what the term market manipulation is for. At its heart this is because people did due diligence. I mean if we just want to get rid of the stock market sure.

This is exactly it.

I'd be perfectly fine with just getting rid of the stock market, but if you think there's a fair way to limit random people from buying stocks that doesn't wholly favor professional investors, well...uh, to put it nicely, I think you're wrong because I've yet to hear it.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

I don't mean this badly but playing the market is not what the term market manipulation is for. At its heart this is because people did due diligence. I mean if we just want to get rid of the stock market sure.

I mean...yes. I'd be perfectly fine getting rid of the stock market.

If you want to explain what "market manipulation" really is then I'm all ears because everything I read about shady wall street practices so far has boiled down to "it's only a crime if you get caught and someone tries to do something about it."

---

I preferred Bernie, but I don't see anything inherently wrong with Warren's message here.

But I do think that people are getting too caught up in the David vs Goliath narrative, which is clouding any sort of discourse. She probably should've known better than to release a statement that could be interpreted as "both sides"-ing the issue even though I don't actually think that was her intent here at all.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I mean...yes. I'd be perfectly fine getting rid of the stock market.

If you want to explain what "market manipulation" really is then I'm all ears because everything I read about shady wall street practices so far has boiled down to "it's only a crime if you get caught and someone tries to do something about it."

Basically the whole out in the open thing precludes it. A hedge fund manager could have seen that public info. Retail investors can't call their non existent account manager when trading of a stock is halted and buy it through them. One is clever and public. The other is manipulation.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I'd be perfectly fine with just getting rid of the stock market, but if you think there's a fair way to limit random people from buying stocks that doesn't wholly favor professional investors, well...uh, to put it nicely, I think you're wrong because I've yet to hear it.

I never said anything about limiting random people from buying stocks. There are so many other avenues besides that.

Robinhood was straight up selling sales data to hedge funds. Those hedge funds are playing both sides of the GME rise using that info and front-running sales to make more profit. Both of those should be illegal, so there's two for you.

---

DoomTheGyarados posted...

Basically the whole out in the open thing precludes it. A hedge fund manager could have seen that public info. Retail investors can't call their non existent account manager when trading of a stock is halted and buy it through them. One is clever and public. The other is manipulation.

The fact that it's not a crime if it's public knowledge makes zero sense to me but okay

Just tear down Wall Street I guess

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

I never said anything about limiting random people from buying stocks. There are so many other avenues besides that.

Robinhood was straight up selling sales data to hedge funds. Those hedge funds are playing both sides of the GME rise using that info and front-running sales to make more profit. Both of those should be illegal, so there's two for you.

Those are good things, as would making it illegal for brokers to limit buying certain stocks while allowing sales.

But would eliminating any of these three things have prevented what happened/is happening? Hell, imagine how much hose stocks could have "been manipulated" yesterday if during the biggest period of attention people were allowed to buy?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The fact that it's not a crime if it's public knowledge makes zero sense to me but okay

Just tear down Wall Street I guess

Insider trading vs not?

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

The act of playing the market causes the market to react. This is literally manipulating the markets.

TIL literally everyone who has ever bought stock is guilty of manipulating the market.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But would eliminating any of these three things have prevented what happened/is happening?

It depends. If you are buying into WSB/reddit collectively organizing this on their own, then no. But as more details come out and it seems like more firms are involved, it seems unlikely to be that simple. But if the whole betting structure of shorting is what's causing this regardless of specific actors then maybe that has to go, or be tightly regulated or heavily taxed or something.

As an aside, was looking into the stuff about the sales stop yesterday and part of it was that one of the companies involved had leveraged ALL of its assets as collateral and had no more leverage to buy on behalf of users.



Stuff like this is just insane to me. Why is any of this allowed?

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

TIL literally everyone who has ever bought stock is guilty of manipulating the market.

I mean yes but since I'm using the term wrong I guess I'm actually referring to mass coordinated application of market forces, which is not a crime

---

https://twitter.com/Beikho/status/1355021201148575744?s=09

---

https://www.theonion.com/this-comment-dozens-of-twitter-users-on-thread-incorr-1846160331

Feels like this is pretty relevant to this series of topics overall

---

They could just make less sensationalist news article titles

gotta get those clicks baby

also regardless of the news article people on twitter and other social media will find a way to sensationalize it themselves because they want the clicks too

---

Of course I'd like it if actual news places had a higher standard for themselves than a social media click mogul

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

It depends. If you are buying into WSB/reddit collectively organizing this on their own, then no. But as more details come out and it seems like more firms are involved, it seems unlikely to be that simple. But if the whole betting structure of shorting is what's causing this regardless of specific actors then maybe that has to go, or be tightly regulated or heavily taxed or something.

As an aside, was looking into the stuff about the sales stop yesterday and part of it was that one of the companies involved had leveraged ALL of its assets as collateral and had no more leverage to buy on behalf of users.



Stuff like this is just insane to me. Why is any of this allowed?

What are you saying shouldn't be allowed here?

You realistically need intermediaries to facilitate trades; without them, I couldn't just say "hey, I want to buy a stock of GME at the current price" and have that happen; there's likely going to be a mismatch between the number of people buying and selling. So what actually happens is that I buy from/sell to a market maker and they figure out the other end of things. But if everyone wants to buy rather than sell because this thing is blowing up like crazy, the market maker's gonna be forced to short the stock themselves and take on a ton of risk unless they stop letting people buy (I guess Robinhood is not a market maker themselves, but they execute trades on behalf of the market makers). Then if they take on so much risk that they literally can't cover it and things fall through, everything's fucked.

It is true that allowing selling but not buying manipulates the market and I can see an argument that if they shut down one they should shut down the other, but my suspicion is that people would also have been mad about that (probably madder?)

---

How is this not The Onion

https://twitter.com/yvonnewingett/status/1355279850274099203?s=19

---

AZGOP is nothing but fucking filth. I hate that woman.

---

Rare form today from these nuts.

Cori Bush is having her office moved after being verbally assaulted by MTG and her team in the halls, said she fears for her safety.

Giuliani on Bannon's podcast saying the Capitol terrorist attack was a LINCOLN PROJECT FALSE FLAG, and LITERALLY STEVE BANNON saying that you can't just say shit like that, and demanding proof.

STEVE BANNON

---

Steve Bannon just realizes Giuliani's crazy is dangerous to his plans of more achievable evil.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

What are you saying shouldn't be allowed here?

You realistically need intermediaries to facilitate trades; without them, I couldn't just say "hey, I want to buy a stock of GME at the current price" and have that happen; there's likely going to be a mismatch between the number of people buying and selling. So what actually happens is that I buy from/sell to a market maker and they figure out the other end of things. But if everyone wants to buy rather than sell because this thing is blowing up like crazy, the market maker's gonna be forced to short the stock themselves and take on a ton of risk unless they stop letting people buy (I guess Robinhood is not a market maker themselves, but they execute trades on behalf of the market makers). Then if they take on so much risk that they literally can't cover it and things fall through, everything's fucked.

It is true that allowing selling but not buying manipulates the market and I can see an argument that if they shut down one they should shut down the other, but my suspicion is that people would also have been mad about that (probably madder?)

LOTM, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not a market maker's job to set a price and eat liability if he can't find counterparties at that price. If there is a mismatch of buyers and sellers at a price point then then price has to move! If everyone wants to buy at $300 then the price should go up. There is a price at which there will be more long shares available to sell. A higher price. How much higher, I don't know, possibly very much higher in this case. At that price possibly some people who have made poor financial decisions will be going bankrupt.

What does that mean? They've already taken on too much risk - Robinhood or Apex or someone. They have not protected themselves for this situation which people on WSB have been publicly predicting would happen for months. They have failed as brokers or market makers (not really sure where the failure is). And the SEC or NYSE or someone should be regulating them to make sure they maintain appropriate risk management.

Something that this squeeze has made clear is that a bunch of supposedly smart people on Wall Street have no sense of risk management. Collectively, they have lost 20 billion dollars shorting a company that was worth 200 million or so at the bottom.

So yes, there are people who are taking risks they shouldn't, but it's not people investing a small amount of money they can easily afford and which they actually have on buying GME long stock. It's the short sellers who are risking an astronomical amount of money for a comparatively tiny possible gain. And that wouldn't be so bad systemically, but the problem is they are risking more than they have. And if they can't cover it, then others must cover for them, and the chain reaction of chaos starts.

But from a regulator's point of view - if a broker or market maker or anyone has to cheat or else they go bankrupt - they must go bankrupt and they must not be allowed to cheat. No more bailouts.


---

Also, obviously, it's better to suspend trading entirely than to only let one side trade. I was upset when they did that with LK back in April last year but when it was unhalted the prices were fair. Much better outcome than having retail investors sell into an environment where they are getting paid way below a fair price for their shares because there is artificially no demand. And sure, you could say that people could just not sell until the trading situation is fixed - but there are going to be people, usually the least sophisticated shareholders, who don't know to do that and panic sell.

But! Here it could not be suspended entirely because why should NYSE and all the brokers/market makers with their act together have to stop trading a stock because Apex and Robinhood can't meet capital requirements? And that's where the need for better regulation is - to make sure they will smoothly meet capital requirements next time.

---

But is it the volume that is the problem?

Or just the time it takes for the funds and stocks to properly change hands?

How is it something that's still an issue? From my perspective I pick a stock, I spend money to buy the stock, now I have the stock to do with what I please including selling the stock again. I could turn around in half an hour and sell the stock I just bought and the trade would go through and then someone else will have the stock. So what part of my original trade is unresolved? I received the stock, someone else received the money for the stock. The person who got the money could in some cases immediately withdraw and use the money. So how is it that there is a middleman with a seemingly infinite amount of debt(?) while both the buyer and the seller have moved on with their lives.

---

red sox 777 posted...

LOTM, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. It is not a market maker's job to set a price and eat liability if he can't find counterparties at that price. If there is a mismatch of buyers and sellers at a price point then then price has to move! If everyone wants to buy at $300 then the price should go up. There is a price at which there will be more long shares available to sell. A higher price. How much higher, I don't know, possibly very much higher in this case. At that price possibly some people who have made poor financial decisions will be going bankrupt.

What does that mean? They've already taken on too much risk - Robinhood or Apex or someone. They have not protected themselves for this situation which people on WSB have been publicly predicting would happen for months. They have failed as brokers or market makers (not really sure where the failure is). And the SEC or NYSE or someone should be regulating them to make sure they maintain appropriate risk management.

They would be taking on that liability under the hypothetical scenario where they were forced to facilitate all of these trades in some fixed time. But there's an easy way to limit that liability: they just don't buy/sell the volatile stock. I see no reason why they should be forced to do so if the risks are too high for them.

As for protecting themselves, I don't see what you're suggesting they should have done either. Bought up a bunch of GME stock a month ago so that they could have safely facilitated more trades based on this pump and dump maybe taking off?

I agree that the people massively shorting GameStop were dumb (though not because they were likely to be wrong; there just wasn't much upside given the unlikely but massive downside risk).

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

They would be taking on that liability under the hypothetical scenario where they were forced to facilitate all of these trades in some fixed time. But there's an easy way to limit that liability: they just don't buy/sell the volatile stock. I see no reason why they should be forced to do so if the risks are too high for them.

so it's a free market except because you have to go through about three different tech companies to buy/sell if one of them is unable to or just says no the whole thing shuts down and people get locked out with very little regulation or transparency

great system

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But is it the volume that is the problem?

Or just the time it takes for the funds and stocks to properly change hands?

How is it something that's still an issue? From my perspective I pick a stock, I spend money to buy the stock, now I have the stock to do with what I please including selling the stock again. I could turn around in half an hour and sell the stock I just bought and the trade would go through and then someone else will have the stock. So what part of my original trade is unresolved? I received the stock, someone else received the money for the stock. The person who got the money could in some cases immediately withdraw and use the money. So how is it that there is a middleman with a seemingly infinite amount of debt(?) while both the buyer and the seller have moved on with their lives.

So in a hypothetical system without these middlemen, you couldn't just freely sell stock. You'd have to advertise that you have X stock of Y and you're willing to sell it for Z. Then anyone else could come and take you up on that offer. There's no guarantee they would, though; maybe your price is too high, maybe there's just no one around who happens to want to own the stock even if it's in theory at a fair price, etc. Similarly you could see what other people had to sell, but maybe no one has the stock you want for sale right now, or they're only willing to sell in bulk, or whatever.

Going from this scenario to your smooth experience buying/selling stocks are why the middlemen are useful.

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

so it's a free market except because you have to go through about three different tech companies to buy/sell if one of them is unable to or just says no the whole thing shuts down and people get locked out with very little regulation or transparency

great system

I mean all it is is that both sides have to agree to any trade. As far as I know there's nothing technically stopping anybody from not using a brokerage firm and instead finding a buyer directly. It would just be a huge pain in the ass.

Forcing entities to buy or sell things would seem a lot more problematic to me.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Going from this scenario to your smooth experience buying/selling stocks are why the middlemen are useful.

But the stock and money still change hands as a part of this process to the point that each party has either the stock they bought or the money they got afterwards.

So where is the middleman liability?


---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But the stock and money still change hands as a part of this process to the point that each party has either the stock they bought or the money they got afterwards.

So where is the middleman liability?

They're not buying and selling the stock to you at exactly the same time. If the price moves a lot in the meantime they can potentially lose (or gain) money.

My understanding is that typically the time gap will be very short, but here you have a very erratic stock that a ton of people are jumping on.

As far as Robinhood goes, they're not the market maker themselves; they apparently had to shut down trades because they literally did not have enough cash for collateral to facilitate everything while they waited for trades to clear.

---

Forceful_Dragon posted...

But the stock and money still change hands as a part of this process to the point that each party has either the stock they bought or the money they got afterwards.

So where is the middleman liability?

In the example I read the key is that the middlemen are not simply facilitating 1:1 exchanges. They are trying to buy in bulk, at a reduced rate, sell to many users buying small amounts at the "true" rate, and then pocket the extra. And in this scenario Robinhood is an extra step since they don't buy/sell themselves, they pass along their user data to those doing the actual buying and get paid a finder's fee. This basically is a hack for the fact that the market is not designed to benefit small user transactions like this, while also serving as a way for the huge firms and middlemen to profit. If it's a situation like GME where it's so volatile that the middlemen are like "I dunno about this one fam" or Robinhood's partners literally run out of money to buy because what they want to be doing is selling it for gains, there's nothing they can do.

---

Hey, let's check in with Alex Jones and see how he's doing.

https://twitter.com/jacob__posts/status/1355397291079823365?s=20

---

https://twitter.com/ChrisMegerian/status/1355664540843835402

Fuck these people

---

https://twitter.com/TheDemocrats/status/1355634654255190016

Mid terms are going to be a bloodbath for dems.

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1355701281042681856?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1355701281042681856?s=21

Trump wants a trial on the issue of the election and I guess he will get one. Makes it easier to convict though if he admits he did it and argues it was justified.

---

I can't believe Democrats are getting so much backlash over 1400 vs 2000 checks, even from tons of Democrats.

But, hey, whatever... They kind of deserve it because they basically offered a bribe for votes in tangible monetary value.

---

I can believe it. People are dumb.

---

Big dumb
---