SubJeff on 30/1/2021 at 23:17
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
You don't understand what price is.
Yeah, whatever you say, chief.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I got zero symphatie for hedgefunds. These are not pensionfunds. These are not funds for the litle man to invest his savings.
Oh? You don't think that investors in hedgefunds might be other entities that DO affect the "little man" if it goes tits up?
During a financial crisis? Exactly the same then, of courses. And they'd never learn to be more cautious. Noooooo.
Quote Posted by PigLick
I bet it was more like Citadel calling up Robinhood and saying "put a stop to this". Either way its still shitty, and really gives an insight about the crapness of capitalism.
Word.
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
First, hedge funds have destroyed countless lives by playing with numbers, and will continue to do so. Taking them down, for whatever reason, is in the public good.
It'll all be temporary. Hyrdas and all that.
Quote Posted by lowenz
And I don't think the hedgefunds are - in
reality - separated from others funds.....just because the law.
And circumstance.
Starker on 31/1/2021 at 00:24
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
And I disagree. Of course the Republicans are 10x worse than the Democrats. And indeed the Democrats have a whole range of different opinions in them. But that doesn't make them less capitalists.
The 2008 crash happened partially because Bill Clinton had relaxed and removed a lot of regulations for Wall Street. Obama didn't really do anything to put back those restrictions. Hillary Clinton had made sure that all bankers understood that she would not do anything against their interests. We haven't seen yet what Biden will do. But my bet is: he will put some new restrictions in place to limit the power of small investors. And he will do fuck-all to limit the big guys. Regarding the financial market, the Democrats are just as much pro free and unrestricted market as the Republicans. Or very close.
From a European perspective, both parties have a full-blown capitalistic ideology. The fact that the Republicans, on top of that, are also fascists, doesn't diminish the fact that the Democrats are 110% capitalists.
Of course Democrats are capitalists. Even AOC and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren are. However, not all capitalists are the same and the diversity does matter. Democrats support raising the minimum wage. Is that something "110% capitalists" would do? Biden killed the Keystone pipeline. Is that something an "ultra-capitalist" would do? Democrats want to keep Social Security and Medicare, Republicans want to reduce it and privatize it, respectively (AKA the whole raison d'etre of Paul Ryan). Student debt forgiveness is only something Democrats talk about. And so on.
Sure, you can point to individual acts, like Obama bailing out banks and the car industry (though it can be argued it was a necessity at this point) or Clinton not vetoing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act (though it had already been hollowed out by that point and it was repealed by a Congress where Republicans held the majority in both houses). Nobody can deny the Democrats have a mixed record on a wide variety of issues, including the environment and other causes that are for some reason considered to be "leftist". But for being 110% ultra-capitalists, they seem to hold a lot of positions that go against that.
As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues. And yes, here too their record is mixed (Defense of Marriage Act) and they have been often dragging their feet, but it's not like you can say with a straight face that there is no great difference between them and the Republicans. It's more like, if not day and night exactly, then at least a very overcast day and night.
catbarf on 31/1/2021 at 05:07
Quote Posted by SubJeff
During a financial crisis? Exactly the same then, of courses. And they'd never learn to be more cautious. Noooooo.
Well if the facts that you haven't seemed to research for yourself seem implausible to you, I guess they
must be wrong.
Is S3 just totally wrong about ~113% of shares being shorted as of Friday or what? Short sellers reporting $19 billion in losses thus far isn't real?
SubJeff on 31/1/2021 at 11:03
Quote Posted by Starker
Of course Democrats are capitalists.
As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues.
It's a capitalist country, how is this even a surprise?
What surprises me is how anyone can be against those things you list, but then I'm a lefty loon it seems. I just cannot get my head around the right wing/Tories/Republicans.
And being a capitalist isn't a bad thing. There's just good and bad ways to go about it, as with most things.
Gryzemuis on 31/1/2021 at 12:29
Quote Posted by Starker
Of course Democrats are capitalists. However, not all capitalists are the same and the diversity does matter. Democrats support raising the minimum wage.
Well, our whole discussion seems to be around "what is enough to not be called a capitalist or a conservative". I threw the word "ultra" in, to make sure I think the Democrats are not even close to the middle or even the left. If you compare their actions to European progressive parties. Or if you compare their politics to politics through the last 100 years.
You are correct that some Democrats have nice and friendly ideas about how some parts of society should be. But when you look at what they've done over the last 45 years, there is very little progressive/left/socialist/friendly stuff. (In my own head Nixon is always the border between "post-war" and "modern" times. Not sure if that makes sense). Even Bill Clinton and Obama have done very little to steer the US in the right direction, certainly regarding economy and finance. Yes, on a macro-level (US debt, stockmarket, economic growth, etc) they were a lot better than the Republicans. But what did the US lower-class and lower middle-class really benefit from it? Wages for the common man haven't gone up since the seventies. Education took a nose-dive. Health-care is still a mess.
Quote:
Sure, you can point to individual acts, like Obama bailing out banks and the car industry or Clinton not vetoing the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act
I don't know much about all the details of US politics over the last 45 years. I'm not an American, after all. But from what I remember, what I know, and looking at the current state of the US, I don't see how the Democrats did much to oppose capitalism. Yes, they might oppose that pipeline, they might support higher minimum wages. But on a macro level, they support an (relatively) unregulated market, they support US bullying around in the world for economic gain, they support globalization, they support Wallstreet, etc.
Quote:
As of being ultra-conservative, again, Democrats are the ones who support voting rights, reproductive rights, legalisation of pot, immigration reform, racial justice, and generally tend towards being socially liberal on a wide range of issues. And yes, here too their record is mixed (Defense of Marriage Act) and they have been often dragging their feet, but it's not like you can say with a straight face that there is no great difference between them and the Republicans. It's more like, if not day and night exactly, then at least a very overcast day and night.
I never said there is no difference. Here in this thread I called the Democrats capitalist and conservatives. But I called the Republicans fascists. :) (I used to hesitate to call the Republicans fascists. But after the last 4 years, that hesitation has gone). My point is just: even though the Democrats are much better, friendlier, humane and honest than Republicans, they are still capitalists and conservatives at heart.
I briefly want to point at the fact that religion still plays a big role in the US. And all politicians make sure to announce they are god-fearing Christians (or Jewish, or Muslims). It is one of the reasons I consider the US (and the Democrats too) a religious country. In Europe, even Ireland and Italy are moving away from religion. (Although Poland seems to be moving towards religion. But they were always a very conservative country).
My own country is far from perfect either. We have partially privatized health-care in the 90s. We have privatized our energy-system in the 90s. That's now a big problem, because politics don't have control over it anymore. And our energy-system is slowly bought by foreign companies. We need to transition to green energy, but trying to convince for-profit companies to do so, only works when you give them lots of free money (subsidies). Over the last 20 years, people have voted for our biggest capitalist party and our biggest religious party (conservatives). That doesn't make things better. But still, our right-wing parties are still very different from the US Democrats. I think that is true in most European countries.
For me society means: "we do things together". Government is "us, doing things together". In the US, doing things together is regarded as the devils-work. (Except having an army together). As long as that attitude doesn't change, I consider the US the most capitalistic country in the world.
Gryzemuis on 31/1/2021 at 12:44
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Yeah, whatever you say, chief.
I responded to you saying:
Quote Posted by SubJeff
.. the reason I don't think so is the rise in price is nuts, which means the amount of money going into this is inordinate compared to anything your "nasty share-tradey entity" would put into a single stock.
Price is what somebody is willing to pay for something.
It doesn't always reflect "value" or "worth".
I'm sure you know that. But maybe you don't realize how that applies here.
The value or worth of a stock of GME is related to what the company does, and how much profit they make. But that's not relevant here. The price is dictated by the fact that the hedgefunds have put themselves in an impossible situation. They need to own more stock than exists. So they need to buy stock, no matter what. And when there are more buyers than sellers, price always goes up.
Same thing with medicine. Suppose a pill cost 10 cents to produce. Suppose development-costs were another 50 cents per pill. You can sell that pill for $1, and still make a decent profit. But if someone's life depends on it, they are willing to pay whatever it takes. To stay alive. You can ask $10 or $1000 for such a pill. Price is only whatever someone is willing to pay for it. Is it fair? No. But hedgefunds have played these games forever. Screwing over the little man. Screwing over companies. Screwing over other investors (like more honest pensionfunds and mutual funds).
Also, the price is going up so fast, because there are not enough sellers. Everyone is holding. In a market with small number of operations, each operation has a much bigger impact on price.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Oh? You don't think that investors in hedgefunds might be other entities that DO affect the "little man" if it goes tits up?
I checked for my country. In NL we have the best pension-system in the world. Our biggest pensionfund (ABP, half a trillion euros) is the fifth biggest pensionfund in the world. In NL our pensionfunds invest 1-2% of their money in hedgefunds on average. Exception: ABP itself has 4-5% invested in hedgefunds. But over the last 10 years, our pensionfunds are reducing their investments in hedgefunds. Partially because they don't give the promised returns, and they cost too much (commision). I'm no financial expert, so my knowledge is based on 30 minutes of googling. :) But it seems hedgefunds are shrinking world-wide. Let's hope so.
SubJeff on 31/1/2021 at 14:52
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Price is what somebody is willing to pay for something.
It doesn't always reflect "value" or "worth".
I'm sure you know that. But maybe you don't realize how that applies here.
Yes, of course I know this. I get what's going on. I don't get why you'd think I don't understand the concept of supply and demand (as you've explained with the pills) from my post.
Aaaaaanyway, I'm not sure I agree with you on the religious nature of Europe. It's much more religious than you might think at first glance. I think the UK, Netherlands and Northern Europe are much more secular than the USA but Southern and Eastern Europe... I don't agree. Ireland has laws that are deeply rooted in religion. The abortion rules have changed but for years they were barbaric and based on Christian "values". This is true of both the Republic and Northern Ireland. The attitudes were VERY reminiscent of American Republican idiots.
SubJeff on 31/1/2021 at 14:57
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I checked for my country. In NL we have the best pension-system in the world. Our biggest pensionfund (ABP, half a trillion euros) is the fifth biggest pensionfund in the world. In NL our pensionfunds invest 1-2% of their money in hedgefunds on average. Exception: ABP itself has 4-5% invested in hedgefunds. But over the last 10 years, our pensionfunds are reducing their investments in hedgefunds. Partially because they don't give the promised returns, and they cost too much (commision). I'm no financial expert, so my knowledge is based on 30 minutes of googling. :) But it seems hedgefunds are shrinking world-wide. Let's hope so.
So this is it. 4-5% isn't a trivial amount. And you could imagine a private pension fund investing more than that.
heywood on 31/1/2021 at 16:26
Quote Posted by Nameless Voice
But I think the most likely outcome is to just make it clear how crooked our world is, when governments who won't lift a finger for the average citizen will intercede to protect hedge funds.
Exactly
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
You seem to think that the redditors do this only to fuck the hedgefunds, even though they lose all their money themselves. It's not. The redditors can make money from this. What the small guys are doing, manipulating the market, is exactly what the hedgefunds have been doing for decades. But now the hedgefunds fall victim to their own game. And suddenly these "let the market decide everything"-whimps start crying "dear government, please put in regulations to protect us. and if we go belly up, because of our greedy and stupid strategies, please bail us out".
This ^^^
Hedge funds like a market that is deregulated enough for them to unfairly manipulate it, but regulated enough to make sure they are the only ones who can do the manipulation.
Quote Posted by SubJeff
It's not just Reese-Mogg types that are affected. Any of us could have a stake in this... and have lost 1000s so far.
Any of us could have a stake in a hedge fund? Think again. Most hedge funds require minimum investments on the order of $1M.
What about the people who were invested in Gamestop before all this started? You OK with them getting screwed?
This started with a hedge fund who identified a vulnerable stock and bet that they could destroy it. They didn't care that it was a retail company with thousands of stores and tens of thousands of employees, who got hit hard by closures due to the pandemic. The fund managers and fund investors couldn't care less if they ruined the company in the process.
A majority of Gamestop shares are owned by mutual funds. Average folks who are saving for retirement invest through mutual funds. They are kept out of hedge funds by the minimum investment requirements and therefore they never see the biggest gains. So if the big short were successful, it would have taken retirement savings from lots and lots of average people and transferred it into the accounts of very wealthy people.
So you're good with a bunch of rich investors taking from the retirement accounts of normal folks and potentially wrecking a company and destroying thousands of jobs, but when redditors organize a grass roots sort of effort to flip the advantage, you consider that criminal behavior? Really?
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
I still think it's amazing that after hedge funds destroyed millions of people's lives in 08, the GOP still had the balls to run Romney in '12. Then again, Obama's administration was full of hedge fund managers so I guess it was a wash.
Would you have preferred Rick Santorum?
SubJeff on 31/1/2021 at 17:25
Quote Posted by heywood
So you're good with a bunch of rich investors taking from the retirement accounts of normal folks and potentially wrecking a company and destroying thousands of jobs, but when redditors organize a grass roots sort of effort to flip the advantage, you consider that criminal behavior? Really?
Call Nic Cage! heywood is making a strawman big enough for that Wickerman sequel!
