From what my friend said, that guy is out and that was his close. Understand, not profit just their closing balance. That is not a lone story. A hedge fund another friend works for took almost a billion dollars profit. Making me nauseous. That is where these people`s money is going. This ia not a reset, it is same old shit. Not happy.
Would be remiss if I didn't comment on the Marjorie Taylor Green situation. Look, I suppose it was inevitable given the track of the GOP that a couple Q-anon devotees would get elected to Congress from red districts. It doesn't surprise me at all she believes Sandy Hook was a false flag, stalks gun violence victims on the street, or that she believes a space laser operated by the Rothschilds caused the California wildfires.
But she has now made a pilgrimage to Mar-A-Lago, and the rank and file (so to speak) are basically powerless to stand up to her batshit insanity. At this moment, Marjorie Taylor Green IS the Republican Party. Because it's clear that most GOP politicians are deathly afraid of calling her out. And the only reason for that is because they think a large enough portion of their voters are just like her. The Overton Window in Republican politics is not swinging back to the center after Trump's humiliating departure. It's doing a full sprint even further into the fever swamp, out where the buses don't run.
There is a world of difference between having radical policy ideas and simply being completely unhinged. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see a Harvey Milk situation in Congress in the coming years.
At the moment, the COVID-19 relief bill "negotiations" stand at a place where the Democrats, for the time being, have become self-aware of their own power. The moderate (whatever that even means anymore) Republicans like Susan Collins and Mitt Romney are offering to get on board with a $600 billion package, or maybe 30% of the $1.9 trillion. The Democratic response is "look, if you want to have a good faith discussion about getting down to $1.7 trillion, we can talk, and we'll even consider means-testing the additional direct payments so they aren't sent to those households making over 150k. But that's it, and if you don't like it, we'll pass everything we want through reconciliation".
They seem to have absorbed the mistake of allowing the 2009 stimulus to be whittled down to half of what it should have been to get 3 or 4 Republican votes. This bill isn't about Susan Collins having a seat at the table. At least right now, they are not going to let the Republicans weaponize the word "unity" to kill their entire agenda. The Republicans are playing a weak-ass hand with their deficit concern-trolling, a.) because they have absolutely no credibility on it and b.) the vast majority of voters don't give a shit about the deficit right now. There is no reason for the Democrats to fear voting for this bill at all. The vast majority of Biden's actions, both taken and proposed thus far, are supported by 60%+ of the public.
There's been a military coup in Myanmar (Burma). The military controlled the country completely from 1962 until 2011, before allowing a move towards democracy.
There have been two general elections since then. In 2015 the National League for Democracy won 60% of the seats and thus became the government. The military retained the right to directly appoint 25% of the parliament, which was sufficient to ensure the government could not alter the constitution that the military had supported.
In November 2020 the NLD once more won a majority of seats in an election with an impressive 70% turnout - despite Covid-19 raging at the time. The military has been disputing the results since then, claiming there was widespread fraud, but the electoral commission has dismissed those complaints. That may sound a familiar story to you, but in this case the military have decided to enforce their views through extra-legal means.
The de facto head of the NLD (she can't actually lead it as the constitution bars her as the mother of foreign citizens) is Aung San Suu Kyi. She was famous for her passive resistance under the previous military regime and was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. Since being involved in government though her international reputation has plummeted - with the treatment of the Rohingya being a particular concern. I suspect her motivations there reflect the views of most of the Buddhist majority in the country - that the Rohingya do not belong in the country. However, this latest military coup does illustrate that she has been walking a tightrope for years now and that some of the authoritarian moves she's supported (such as press censorship and suppression of democratic activists) may have been the price to avoid earlier military intervention.
It's distressing to see Myanmar's semi-democratic government fall to the same military regime that reduced one of the most prosperous historical powers in Asia to a poverty-stricken third world nation decades ago, locked up peaceful protesters who called for true democracy, and waged a genocidal war of rape, arson, and murder against ethnic minorities just 4 years ago. Aung San Suu Kyi apparently still favors nonviolent resistance, but I'm not sure that's the right approach when the military--the whole problem with Myanmar for the past 100 years--has decided that even a facade of democracy was unacceptable and had to be thwarted with military force. They falsely cried out electoral fraud after their proxy party got voted out in a landslide; they did not want the people to decide who was in power.
Nelson Mandela said the only reason nonviolent resistance worked in South Africa was because the ruling class had some pretensions to being civilized people, and were willing to at least listen to other viewpoints rather than crush them. His party, the African National Congress, had planned on resorting to sabotage if peaceful protesting eventually failed; the commitment to nonviolence had to be conditional. Nonviolent resistance brought down apartheid, but it didn't bring down the Reich.
I'm only so familiar with Myanmar's politics and history. But I don't think the military is going to turn around and suddenly allow the democracy they've been fighting against for years. I think we're just going to see more vicious, corrupt military rule.
Speaking of coups, the U.S was involved in one in Venezuela just recently. Same old story, they dispute the results of the election. I would think twice before thinking the U.S has any moral authority on the matter of election integrity.
Not that the U.S can really do anything about the Myanmar situation. But if they could, the most likely response would be to install a puppet leader of their own.
The whole GME situation has inspired me to be more literate on matters of finance and it has been a revealing ride so far. Anyway I think the WSB folks are right that the current dip has all the fingerprints of a short down ladder. That is, an artificially created dip caused by their manipulation of the trading market. The real time trades at the current moment are second-to-second trades of neat little packages of even numbered volumes, 100 or 200 shares back and forth almost every time. There is a good write up of what they are, from several years ago, here.
Speaking of coups, the U.S was involved in one in Venezuela just recently. Same old story, they dispute the results of the election. I would think twice before thinking the U.S has any moral authority on the matter of election integrity.
Not that the U.S can really do anything about the Myanmar situation. But if they could, the most likely response would be to install a puppet leader of their own.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government in their plan. The only firm evidence is that the US does have a reward for Maduro's capture. But there's no evidence that anyone in the US government coordinated or funded these men. In fact, there's ample evidence that these men had to fund their own operation, relying heavily on fundraising from Venezuelan ex-pats living in Colombia.
However, after a coalition of parties opposed to Chavismo won a majority in the national legislature in 2015. In 2017, Maduro pushed to create a separate legislature that would nullify the power of the current legislature, he even had to fire his chief prosecutor (equivalent to an Attorney General) who saw the move as unconstitutional. Since then, violence, imprisonment and fraud have helped Chavistas regain the regular legislature, in December. That's the actual coup.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I haven't heard about Immortal Technique in years until he starting weighing in on the GME situation. He had some insightful, if over the top, stuff no doubt.
I'm seeing countless media articles promoting silver based on the "reddit investors" but I haven't seen anything supportive of investing in silver from r/WallStreetBets, the front page is almost nothing but discouraging statements about it since, apparently, Citadel has a long position on silver and you're just putting money back into their pocket.
Yet another example in how the media is against the people and a friend of the rich and powerful. To reiterate, there is no WSB support for buying silver, this is a media invention that just so happens to benefit the hedgies.
I haven't heard about Immortal Technique in years until he starting weighing in on the GME situation. He had some insightful, if over the top, stuff no doubt.
He definitely went a little crazy over the years, further and further into the land of conspiracy theories. He thinks the Illuminati are real. I don't think they are. There are elites in the world, sure, but they're not the Illuminati.
Silver is not a stock, it is a commodity. Though it is one of the rare commodities, like all precious metals, that is not valued by how much it is used. This is a solid investment if someone wants to ride a Reddit trend in a market, this has far less downside. It’s value is based on how much someone wants it.
Um... I would be remiss if I didn’t fully warn everyone that when trading any commodity, it is possible to end up with the full value of your position on your doorstep. Does everyone remember when I said how scary commodities are?Precious metals are slightly different but commodities are still very scary. Okay, you buy silver and you own a piece of silver, commodities are not so much like that. You are leveraging. So you leverage a thousand dollars of silver for $100, if it is called you still owe $1,000 in silver. If people are just purchasing silver that is one thing, but the average person or many, many average people can’t manipulate the market by buying a piece of silver. I have 2 one kilo bars, just because I thought that it would be cool at the time. Meh, not so much.
In other words, just buy silver, please stay away from anything else. Silver will always have value unlike GameStop so it is hard to go wrong as long as you don’t get stupid.
There are silver stocks, sorry didn't mean to mislead, they are companies though and not silver itself.
Not that interesting to most, personally I find it very interesting. Not getting into it myself but will be watching.
Call me old fashioned, but the fact that the US has historically been involved in coups and regime changes in South America is precisely the reason why it's more important than ever to have actual evidence of US involvement.
Obviously the US is capable of such things, but you cannot expect to even try to hold them accountable unless there is some evidence connecting them to it.
An update on GME, many of the shorted positions were called and those people, or funds, lost billions. The Reddit users did stick it to someone. Unfortunately they still own a stock that is worth nothing, but damn, this is really amazing.
Seems to be a bit of good cop/bad cop going on with the relief package situation. Biden is having 10 Republicans over to the White House for the evening, while at the same time Schumer and Pelosi have both initiated the reconciliation process to pass the bill with a simple majority vote if need be. Message being, we're happy to talk, but the train is leaving the station with or without you.
Example # 2568 that Republicans are WELL aware they have no shot at winning if there is reasonable access for everyone to cast their ballots. This is all they have left to fall back on. Just an utterly bankrupt political movement:
Example # 2568 that Republicans are WELL aware they have no shot at winning if there is reasonable access for everyone to cast their ballots. This is all they have left to fall back on. Just an utterly bankrupt political movement:
Well, Michigan is looking to clean things up too, but the actual voters liked the convenience of voting by mail. This includes us working schleps that, you know, have to actually rearrange our schedules to vote. We won't be going back now that the bridge has been crossed...
Okay, small update on why Robinhood stopped sales of a few stocks. Now I don’t know why this happened, but to me it is suspect at the very least. Their clearinghouse, the well of stocks that they have access to, more than doubled the cost in which they allowed their stocks to be available to Robinhood. Cost is not the proper word but I don’t remember the actual term right now. This is super weird, and to my eye more than a little fishy. At that point Robinhood would have been breaking the law to continue to sell stocks that they no longer had use of. They did talk that down but by then the damage to them and the market had already been done. Don’t know but something smells off. Hope that someone looks into that clearinghouse.
Okay, small update on why Robinhood stopped sales of a few stocks. Now I don’t know why this happened, but to me it is suspect at the very least. Their clearinghouse, the well of stocks that they have access to, more than doubled the cost in which they allowed their stocks to be available to Robinhood. Cost is not the proper word but I don’t remember the actual term right now. This is super weird, and to my eye more than a little fishy. At that point Robinhood would have been breaking the law to continue to sell stocks that they no longer had use of. They did talk that down but by then the damage to them and the market had already been done. Don’t know but something smells off. Hope that someone looks into that clearinghouse.
Ya I read that, but if that was actually the case, then all traffic regarding the stock (both buying and selling) should have been stopped while they got the money from investors. It's probably accurate, but a flimsy excuse.
Okay, small update on why Robinhood stopped sales of a few stocks. Now I don’t know why this happened, but to me it is suspect at the very least. Their clearinghouse, the well of stocks that they have access to, more than doubled the cost in which they allowed their stocks to be available to Robinhood. Cost is not the proper word but I don’t remember the actual term right now. This is super weird, and to my eye more than a little fishy. At that point Robinhood would have been breaking the law to continue to sell stocks that they no longer had use of. They did talk that down but by then the damage to them and the market had already been done. Don’t know but something smells off. Hope that someone looks into that clearinghouse.
Ya I read that, but if that was actually the case, then all traffic regarding the stock (both buying and selling) should have been stopped while they got the money from investors. It's probably accurate, but a flimsy excuse.
Not flimsy at all. The people using Robinhood were not shorting the stock but it doesn’t work that way anyway. From the clearinghouse viewpoint longs and shorts offset. Not going to argue or even go back and forth on this, they had no other choice but to limit those sales or be in serious trouble. Those stock sales were almost all of their volume at the time. If you want to believe that Robinhood is the arch villain in this certainly that is your prerogative, believe what you want.
Okay, small update on why Robinhood stopped sales of a few stocks. Now I don’t know why this happened, but to me it is suspect at the very least. Their clearinghouse, the well of stocks that they have access to, more than doubled the cost in which they allowed their stocks to be available to Robinhood. Cost is not the proper word but I don’t remember the actual term right now. This is super weird, and to my eye more than a little fishy. At that point Robinhood would have been breaking the law to continue to sell stocks that they no longer had use of. They did talk that down but by then the damage to them and the market had already been done. Don’t know but something smells off. Hope that someone looks into that clearinghouse.
Ya I read that, but if that was actually the case, then all traffic regarding the stock (both buying and selling) should have been stopped while they got the money from investors. It's probably accurate, but a flimsy excuse.
Not flimsy at all. The people using Robinhood were not shorting the stock but it doesn’t work that way anyway. From the clearinghouse viewpoint longs and shorts offset. Not going to argue or even go back and forth on this, they had no other choice but to limit those sales or be in serious trouble. Those stock sales were almost all of their volume at the time. If you want to believe that Robinhood is the arch villain in this certainly that is your prerogative, believe what you want.
No, I already said in this post, one should be leery of making Robinhood the villain in this post because that limits an individual’s ability to trade stocks which is what the hedge funds want.
What I am implying is that selling the stock, which Robinhood still allowed, was favourable to those who had taken a short position, allowing the stock to drop more in price before they got out of the short position without having to worry about WSB and others keeping the price high. That to me is the sketchy part of this, not to mention why the clearinghouse decided to double the money needed, without warning.
Savvy investors are not using Robinhood. So if a little guy makes money on a short through Robinhood, who cares. Maybe no one believed when I said that those that bought GME at over $30 had already lost their money if they did not get out before the worm had turned. Period. And $30 dollars is being super generous.
Meh, sorry, not argumentative. Also not wanting to go over this.
The best explanation I've seen for why brokerage apps would restrict trading:
Trades through the app are not instantaneous. You say buy, they sell those shares for you sometime in the next day or two. If they have a seller in the app, great - you get them from that seller right away, and everything is nice. If not, they have to buy from someone elsewhere that wants to sell, and that takes time.
But ... when you hit "buy", you were promised a price. If the price changes before the transaction goes through, that's on the brokerage. If they have to pay more, they do - and the law says they have to spend their own money on the difference, rather than gamble with their customers' money. With a stock this volatile and highly traded, they simply don't have enough money to cover the risks. So they do the only thing they can do, and restrict trading. The less popular side gets less restriction, because trades between customers in the same brokerage can still go through cleanly.
They're following the law, as interpreted by a Wall Street rule-setting group. If those rules are slanted toward the big money on Wall Street - well, that's the sort of thing Congress can take a look at. But that certainly won't be before this event has run its course.
They're following the law, as interpreted by a Wall Street rule-setting group. If those rules are slanted toward the big money on Wall Street - well, that's the sort of thing Congress can take a look at.
That's awfully optimistic. I think the fact that the people who need regulated are the ones writing the regulations is a feature, not a bug.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US. It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US.
It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Comments
But she has now made a pilgrimage to Mar-A-Lago, and the rank and file (so to speak) are basically powerless to stand up to her batshit insanity. At this moment, Marjorie Taylor Green IS the Republican Party. Because it's clear that most GOP politicians are deathly afraid of calling her out. And the only reason for that is because they think a large enough portion of their voters are just like her. The Overton Window in Republican politics is not swinging back to the center after Trump's humiliating departure. It's doing a full sprint even further into the fever swamp, out where the buses don't run.
There is a world of difference between having radical policy ideas and simply being completely unhinged. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we see a Harvey Milk situation in Congress in the coming years.
They seem to have absorbed the mistake of allowing the 2009 stimulus to be whittled down to half of what it should have been to get 3 or 4 Republican votes. This bill isn't about Susan Collins having a seat at the table. At least right now, they are not going to let the Republicans weaponize the word "unity" to kill their entire agenda. The Republicans are playing a weak-ass hand with their deficit concern-trolling, a.) because they have absolutely no credibility on it and b.) the vast majority of voters don't give a shit about the deficit right now. There is no reason for the Democrats to fear voting for this bill at all. The vast majority of Biden's actions, both taken and proposed thus far, are supported by 60%+ of the public.
There have been two general elections since then. In 2015 the National League for Democracy won 60% of the seats and thus became the government. The military retained the right to directly appoint 25% of the parliament, which was sufficient to ensure the government could not alter the constitution that the military had supported.
In November 2020 the NLD once more won a majority of seats in an election with an impressive 70% turnout - despite Covid-19 raging at the time. The military has been disputing the results since then, claiming there was widespread fraud, but the electoral commission has dismissed those complaints. That may sound a familiar story to you, but in this case the military have decided to enforce their views through extra-legal means.
The de facto head of the NLD (she can't actually lead it as the constitution bars her as the mother of foreign citizens) is Aung San Suu Kyi. She was famous for her passive resistance under the previous military regime and was given the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. Since being involved in government though her international reputation has plummeted - with the treatment of the Rohingya being a particular concern. I suspect her motivations there reflect the views of most of the Buddhist majority in the country - that the Rohingya do not belong in the country. However, this latest military coup does illustrate that she has been walking a tightrope for years now and that some of the authoritarian moves she's supported (such as press censorship and suppression of democratic activists) may have been the price to avoid earlier military intervention.
Nelson Mandela said the only reason nonviolent resistance worked in South Africa was because the ruling class had some pretensions to being civilized people, and were willing to at least listen to other viewpoints rather than crush them. His party, the African National Congress, had planned on resorting to sabotage if peaceful protesting eventually failed; the commitment to nonviolence had to be conditional. Nonviolent resistance brought down apartheid, but it didn't bring down the Reich.
I'm only so familiar with Myanmar's politics and history. But I don't think the military is going to turn around and suddenly allow the democracy they've been fighting against for years. I think we're just going to see more vicious, corrupt military rule.
Not that the U.S can really do anything about the Myanmar situation. But if they could, the most likely response would be to install a puppet leader of their own.
So far there is no good evidence that the two Americans arrested in Venezuela had any connection with the US government in their plan. The only firm evidence is that the US does have a reward for Maduro's capture. But there's no evidence that anyone in the US government coordinated or funded these men. In fact, there's ample evidence that these men had to fund their own operation, relying heavily on fundraising from Venezuelan ex-pats living in Colombia.
However, after a coalition of parties opposed to Chavismo won a majority in the national legislature in 2015. In 2017, Maduro pushed to create a separate legislature that would nullify the power of the current legislature, he even had to fire his chief prosecutor (equivalent to an Attorney General) who saw the move as unconstitutional. Since then, violence, imprisonment and fraud have helped Chavistas regain the regular legislature, in December. That's the actual coup.
Besides the storied history of U.S coups in that part of the world and in the world generally, the numerous connections between the paramilitary groups leaders and the President, the statements of some of the green berets, and the U.S itself declaring the President illegitimate, you're right, there is no evidence that the U.S was in any way involved. It just takes, I don't know, a measure of historical literacy to add two and two together to make four. Some might think the United States is a bastion of freedom and democracy and would never do anything like play a part in overthrowing an elected government, but nothing could be further from the truth.
I haven't heard about Immortal Technique in years until he starting weighing in on the GME situation. He had some insightful, if over the top, stuff no doubt.
Yet another example in how the media is against the people and a friend of the rich and powerful. To reiterate, there is no WSB support for buying silver, this is a media invention that just so happens to benefit the hedgies.
https://www.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/la5650/its_very_interesting_to_see_how_much_targeted/
To say nothing of total garbage like this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys-gamestop-story-its-hedge-funds-short-sellers/
He definitely went a little crazy over the years, further and further into the land of conspiracy theories. He thinks the Illuminati are real. I don't think they are. There are elites in the world, sure, but they're not the Illuminati.
Um... I would be remiss if I didn’t fully warn everyone that when trading any commodity, it is possible to end up with the full value of your position on your doorstep. Does everyone remember when I said how scary commodities are?Precious metals are slightly different but commodities are still very scary. Okay, you buy silver and you own a piece of silver, commodities are not so much like that. You are leveraging. So you leverage a thousand dollars of silver for $100, if it is called you still owe $1,000 in silver. If people are just purchasing silver that is one thing, but the average person or many, many average people can’t manipulate the market by buying a piece of silver. I have 2 one kilo bars, just because I thought that it would be cool at the time. Meh, not so much.
In other words, just buy silver, please stay away from anything else. Silver will always have value unlike GameStop so it is hard to go wrong as long as you don’t get stupid.
There are silver stocks, sorry didn't mean to mislead, they are companies though and not silver itself.
Not that interesting to most, personally I find it very interesting. Not getting into it myself but will be watching.
Obviously the US is capable of such things, but you cannot expect to even try to hold them accountable unless there is some evidence connecting them to it.
Ya I read that, but if that was actually the case, then all traffic regarding the stock (both buying and selling) should have been stopped while they got the money from investors. It's probably accurate, but a flimsy excuse.
Not flimsy at all. The people using Robinhood were not shorting the stock but it doesn’t work that way anyway. From the clearinghouse viewpoint longs and shorts offset. Not going to argue or even go back and forth on this, they had no other choice but to limit those sales or be in serious trouble. Those stock sales were almost all of their volume at the time. If you want to believe that Robinhood is the arch villain in this certainly that is your prerogative, believe what you want.
No, I already said in this post, one should be leery of making Robinhood the villain in this post because that limits an individual’s ability to trade stocks which is what the hedge funds want.
What I am implying is that selling the stock, which Robinhood still allowed, was favourable to those who had taken a short position, allowing the stock to drop more in price before they got out of the short position without having to worry about WSB and others keeping the price high. That to me is the sketchy part of this, not to mention why the clearinghouse decided to double the money needed, without warning.
Savvy investors are not using Robinhood. So if a little guy makes money on a short through Robinhood, who cares. Maybe no one believed when I said that those that bought GME at over $30 had already lost their money if they did not get out before the worm had turned. Period. And $30 dollars is being super generous.
Meh, sorry, not argumentative. Also not wanting to go over this.
Trades through the app are not instantaneous. You say buy, they sell those shares for you sometime in the next day or two. If they have a seller in the app, great - you get them from that seller right away, and everything is nice. If not, they have to buy from someone elsewhere that wants to sell, and that takes time.
But ... when you hit "buy", you were promised a price. If the price changes before the transaction goes through, that's on the brokerage. If they have to pay more, they do - and the law says they have to spend their own money on the difference, rather than gamble with their customers' money. With a stock this volatile and highly traded, they simply don't have enough money to cover the risks. So they do the only thing they can do, and restrict trading. The less popular side gets less restriction, because trades between customers in the same brokerage can still go through cleanly.
They're following the law, as interpreted by a Wall Street rule-setting group. If those rules are slanted toward the big money on Wall Street - well, that's the sort of thing Congress can take a look at. But that certainly won't be before this event has run its course.
That's awfully optimistic. I think the fact that the people who need regulated are the ones writing the regulations is a feature, not a bug.
This story has gone viral in the U.K. - you wouldn’t believe it on a sitcom. Respect to the clerk in the face of some bad behaviour
Get your Jackie Weaver merch here - https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/You-have-no-authority-here-Jackie-Weaver-tshirt/174625572763?hash=item28a87ec79b:g:fGcAAOSwDYJgHRUa
Past events are not evidence though. There's a reason why someone's past criminal record isn't used to establish guilt on an alleged crime. And you have no evidence for the other alleged connections.
The fact of the matter is, Chavistas in Venezuela are not afraid of voicing their opinions or of running for office, or anything like that. It is opponents of Chavismo that are. One side in Venezuela lives in fear of exercising any kind of political power in public! I mean it's weird to me, to have this super strident opinion and not even acknowledge, for a second, where the political violence in Venezuela is actually being directed. Not everything has to center around the US. It's also really weird, to me, to be a Russia-skeptic about the 2016 election, and yet to have such a low standard of evidence for the "US-backed coup" here. It's certainly not a consistent approach.
The issue around Russia was subject to a years long investigation at the highest levels of a hostile government with the end result being that they were not even accused of the appearance of collusion or wrongdoing. It's still surprising to me that people bring this up as if they were proven right in the end.
The extent of the involvement of the U.S is certainly an open question, but with U.S armed forces being the lynchpin of the whole operation it's hard to say there was none at all. I have no problem agreeing to disagree on this. But I question the worth of any worldview that does not take the recent past of individuals or nations into account. If Donald Trump had a known and proven history of collusion with the Russian government, it would have shed a whole other light on the entire question as well as key events.
Dude, seriously?!