Reddit/Gamestop vs.Wall Street

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 8:14am

Thematics wrote:

Do you have a problem with investment management?

It claims to benefit all, but a lot of the time it actually doesn't, it truly only benefits asset owners, but it's important to always bare in mind, asset ownership globally is heavily skewed, ultimately leading to wealth trickling up.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 8:15am

Thematics wrote:

Do you have a problem with investment management? Or are you just repeating slogans you heard in movies or somewhere else?

I repeat what I continually research from reputable sources

Mike Murdock · 29-01-2021 8:18am

Ah now have a heart! Those Paddy Power-esque Gamblers on Wall Street with their "unique" (racing) systems are people too!

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 8:21am

Thematics wrote: »

Do you have a problem with investment management? Or are you just repeating slogans you heard in movies or somewhere else?

The current concept of "investment" is an utter corruption of what it was originally envisaged as and yes, it is extremely damaging to society.

Investing was originally supposed to be about paying companies an amount of money up front in exchange for the promise of a future share of the company's earnings. That was the idea. Once it became primarily about betting on the share price and trading shares from one buyer to another without any of that money actually going to the company itself, it became a toxic entity which fundamentally contributes nothing to society and yet for some reason is still regarded as a benchmark of the overall economy, with serious consequences for ordinary people if the casino glitches in any way. That's why so many people on the left and right despise the system as it currently exists.

It's similar to housing. Nobody is going to get pissed off at those who invest in construction - putting money into housing projects with the expectation of sharing some of the profits from the eventual sale or rent of the resulting housing.

It's when the housing has already been built, therefore nothing new is getting created or produced into society, that the speculative trading and hoarding of said housing for the purposes of gambling on its price fluctuations becomes utterly toxic. Toxic for one simple reason - the entire fundamental purpose of speculative investment is directly at odds with the fundamental goals of society and more and more importantly, also the fundamental realities of what's good or bad for the planet.

Take this case for example: Melvin Capital's position essentially meant that in order for them and whoever they represent - pensions, banks, trust funds, whatever - a company with many employees and other shareholders had to go bankrupt so that Melvin could make a gigantic profit on the short.

Any system which allows one group of people to massively profit from the downfall of others is a system which is inherently bad for humanity, if one's view of humanity is that, in general, we should be moving away from a world in which the only way to be a winner is to create losers.

Tl;dr, investing in productive businesses thereby capitalising them and helping goods or services get produced for society while sharing in the profits = fine, good, exactly why the stock market was created.

Investing in non productive moving of already existing assets from column A to column B or competing with other investors to drive prices up without anything of value actually being created for the wider economy = one of the main reasons modern economics is so unbelievably screwed up and causes so much large scale societal fallout on such an unbelievably regular basis.

Speculative investing is toxic. The very nature of it involves exploitation, manipulation, and fundamentally a higher cost of living for ordinary people.

patnor1011 · 29-01-2021 8:22am

Thematics wrote: »

Investing people's wealth is a valuable economic activity.

Problem is they no longer are in that game. It is not people's wealth they invest but a gamble with hypothetical monopoly money which in this instance they lost. So now they have to find and pay real money to cover monopoly money they were playing/gambling with.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 8:26am

Thematics wrote:

Who claims it "benefits all"? But it does indeed have further benefits to society. But benefitting all? Don't know who said that.

The benefit all claim is widely used in society, hence terms such as 'trickle down' and 'the rising tide', this is what we d call bullsh1t! Once again these activities only truly benefit asset owners, primarily major asset owners, which has resulted in financialised activities such as 'share buy backs' etc, which in fact is money making money schemes, but adds very little value to the real economy, only truly the finalized economy, again, which only truly benefits the minority in society, I.e. asset owning classes.

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 8:27am

patnor1011 wrote: »

Problem is they no longer are in that game. It is not people's wealth they invest but a gamble with hypothetical monopoly money which in this instance they lost. So now they have to find and pay real money to cover monopoly money they were playing/gambling with.

And those who called the game for what it was and exposed the lie are being attacked all over the place by neoliberals shouting "these are peoples' savings you're f*cking with!"

Again acting as if it's exposing the con that's the issue as opposed to the con itself. They're acting like the quintessential rom-com character who gets caught having an affair and blames their partner for not trusting them, looking for evidence and thus "ruining our relationship".

It's laughable.

LessOutragePlz · 29-01-2021 8:46am

Thematics wrote: »

Efficient capital markets bring about a lower cost of living for ordinary people. And by the way people have been trading shares of companies for hundreds of years without any money going to the company. Why should it go to the company. If Dave wants to buy shares from Alan why should the company get any money from that. The com9any already got money when it issued the shares.

Why should two people not be alllowed to trade shares, what's your problem with that?

No, investment is not non productive. It provides a service to people who want their money to grow over time in accordance with their risk appetite

On the topic of short selling. I see no problem with it in itself, it adds value to society through price discovery. Over valued companies should be found out. It is best for society when capital is directed to productive and efficient companies.

Care to show us how the average Joe benefits from a massive hedge fund making billions from shorting a stock?

What about when there was an attempt to drive down the share price of Tesla by investors shorting the stock?

If that had happened and Tesla went bust using you're logic that would have been good for society because it would have been reallocating capital to the "right" places. We all know EVs are a lot better for the environment and thus are a great benefit to society yet you claim short sellers are doing everyone a favour. We all know that is a load of nonsense and they have been caught with their pants down big time.

If can't see the flaw in your logic, then no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise.

The EMH is a hypothesis and this week has proven that the hypothesis is not true.

29-01-2021 8:49am

Chris Cuomo skewered the Robinhood CEO who tried to use the exact same script that he used on MSNBC.

The J Stands for Jay · 29-01-2021 8:56am

Gatling wrote: »

Has anyone actually made real world money on this or is just a case of sticking it to the hedge funds

I bought one share share for the lols @$88 and sold for $410.

Vic_08 · 29-01-2021 9:10am

Thematics wrote: »

On the topic of short selling. I see no problem with it in itself, it adds value to society through price discovery. Over valued companies should be found out. It is best for society when capital is directed to productive and efficient companies.

Ah so this is what the shorting is for; those selfless funds are altruistically providing a price discovery service for the rest of the market, how nice of them.

In a completely unrelated topic anyone know where I can lay a bet on when the first master of the universe laid low by a bunch of redditors takes a nosedive off the roof of their high-rise?

29-01-2021 9:12am

Thematics wrote: »

If average Joe spends $800 per Tesla share and Tesla proceeds to go out of business then average Joe loses money. It's important that share prices are scrutinised for fair value. Elon Musk saud hinself that Tesla was overvalues, meaning investors, including the average Joe, are paying too much for Tesla shares. Tesla's P/E ratio is enormous.

In this scenario, if the hedge funds were engaging in a naked short, they would be breaking the law... So it would be pretty indefensible, basically the most rabid capitalism.

riddles · 29-01-2021 9:12am

Shorting shares has just become a topic the first significant week of the Biden administration....... strange that. Seems more red square than Reddit.

29-01-2021 9:18am

Thematics wrote: »

If a company is breaking the law then obviously it should be sanctioned.

But short selling in itself addd value to society, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

What value do naked shorts offer? They are also a pretty common practise unfortunately. So basically shorting with stock they don't have access to... Do you think regulations should be enforced against such practises?

LessOutragePlz · 29-01-2021 9:20am

Thematics wrote: »

Market efficiency isn't binary. All markets are different, some will be more efficient than others.

Is the market for the GameStop stock operating efficiently in your opinion?

thomas 123 · 29-01-2021 9:25am

Thematics wrote: »

No those funds are trying to make a profit, that is their mandate and what they are paid to do by their investors. It also happens to be healthy for capital markets.

Do you think companies should try to make losses? Do you have a problem with companies making profits?

Do you have a problem with people making a profit or is that right reserved by the very large company?

tara73 · 29-01-2021 9:38am

Overheal wrote: »

So guess what, they yanked that link on copyright grounds too - and CNBC's youtube channel just shows the first 3 minutes as before,

Here's a still up link for the full interview where he hands CNBC their lunch https://vimeo.com/505494564 the whole interview is fire, its half an hour long, and if you still see this link working take the time to view it if you're following this thread.

video is gone. Overheal, can you summarise what was said in the interview and why it's gone? thanks a mil.

S.M.B. · 29-01-2021 9:40am

tara73 wrote: »

video is gone. Overheal, can you summarise what was said in the interview and why it's gone? thanks a mil.

It's there for me.

grassylawn · 29-01-2021 9:42am

Financial services are not productive in the sense that they don't produce a product, but provide a service.

Ideally humans would put more resources (human and material) into things that benefit humanity in a more profound sense. But we just don't really do that in general - it's not something specific to financial services. In this part of the world it gets singled out for this though because financial services in London tends to draw in a lot of high achieving people with strong math skills who should be all doing research in physics or something.

My understanding is that our basic economic model of looking for perpetual growth needs to change urgently. Perpetual economic growth is linked to perpetual increases in consumption and pollution and therefore is basically leading to our doom. I'm not sure how much financial services is a part of that.

grassylawn · 29-01-2021 10:01am

Thematics wrote: »

How do you think companies would exist without financial services?

Dunno what you took from my post. Every day I look on this it seems like people respond more to things they imagine I said than what I've said.

But anyway, anyone can start a company. PLCs are what you probably mean.

amacca · 29-01-2021 10:02am

grassylawn wrote: »

My understanding is that our basic economic model of looking for perpetual growth needs to change urgently. Perpetual economic growth is linked to perpetual increases in consumption and pollution and therefore is basically leading to our doom. I'm not sure how much financial services is a part of that.

I always thought the economic growth mantra was unsustainable/crazy

How do you keep growing on a planet with limited resources...economic growth works well when you have space to expand into...I suppose it works well in a growth phase but it seems clear without a technological revolution or something like that we will need a new model for peace and prosperity as a species eventually.

WrenBoy · 29-01-2021 10:12am

Birds of a feather and all that... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
"Google salvaged Robinhood’s one-star rating by deleting nearly 100,000 negative reviews"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store

rapul · 29-01-2021 10:14am

WrenBoy wrote: »

Birds of a feather and all that... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
"Google salvaged Robinhood’s one-star rating by deleting nearly 100,000 negative reviews"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store

Absolute bolox. None of what has happened should be allowed happen.

is_that_so · 29-01-2021 10:14am

WrenBoy wrote: »

Birds of a feather and all that... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
"Google salvaged Robinhood’s one-star rating by deleting nearly 100,000 negative reviews"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store

There are reviews and there's just plain bitchin'! The app is not to blame for this.

WrenBoy · 29-01-2021 10:25am

is_that_so wrote: »

There are reviews and there's just plain bitchin'! The app is not to blame for this.

What ?? They stopped people buying GME, only letting them sell because of the performance of the stock leading to a massive drop with multiple claims of market manipulation going their way.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:32am

Thematics wrote: »

How do you think companies would exist without financial services?

the financial sector has effectively become parasitic and predatory, it not longer truly benefits society as a whole, it is now undermining our most critical of needs, including the needs of those it benefits financially, it has become potentially the most dangerous sector we now have

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:34am

Thematics wrote: »

Growth comes from improved efficiency and technology, not just from expanding.

...and id completely agree with economist kate raworth, anything that grows indefinitely in nature, generally is parasitic, such as cancer

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:40am

Thematics wrote: »

Do you haven an specific examples? In what way is it undermining critical needs?

The financial sevices industry provides vital services to the economy.

it is clearly obvious that globally we are becoming more unstable politically, economically, environmentally and socially, all humans, including the wealthy, require elements of stability in these factors, in order to survive, we re currently experiencing the opposite.

yes a functioning financial sector is required for all of these needs, but again, we currently dont have that, we have the opposite, it is currently highly dysfunctional, the 08 crash showed this very well, but we decided to do nothing about it, so here we are.....

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:40am

Thematics wrote: »

Trees grow indefinitely, trees are good for the Earth.

do they really?

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 10:42am

Thematics wrote: »

How do you think companies would exist without financial services?

Financial services should be entirely public and non-profit. There is a massive, massive, massive conflict of interest when those with the power to manipulate how money works and in some cases more or less create it are private actors who do not have the interests of society as a whole as their number one priority.

I've said for years that this should apply to the entire sector. It's f*cking insane, to take one obvious example, that in an increasingly cashless society one has to pay banks for the privilege of accessing one's wages, etc. This kind of power should not be in the hands of those with personal interest at heart, they should be public bodies whose remit is to serve the general population and nothing other than that.

As far as I'm concerned, abolish commercial banking altogether and put the central bank in charge of the whole system, and have them answer to the public as opposed to a tiny cabal of super-rich investors and pension funds. That way, the decisions they make would be accountable to the people and they would be prevented from intentionally f*cking millions of people over so that half a dozen people can add some extra zeroes on to incomes which already run over several lines of zeroes.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:50am

Thematics wrote: »

A lot was done about the financial crash, much more stringent regulatory requirements were introduced for banks to make them more resilient in distressed markets. We saw that pay off during the volatily of the covid pandemic. Banks balance sheets remained strong. One area that was overlooked was the shadow banking sector, this are needs greater regulation. The shadow banking sector also provide valuable services to the economy.

a lot of nothing, virtually nothing has changed here, and this can be clearly seen since 08, again, wealth inequality has rapidly grown since the crash, and the preferred sector to do so is in fact, 'the financial sector'! you d be surprised of the amount of people that dont realise facts such as, the financial sector in fact creates the majority of the money supply in the form of credit, and its main purpose is to continually drive up asset prices, and as previously discussed, of which ownership is heavily skewed.

Faker74 · 29-01-2021 10:51am

is_that_so wrote: »

There are reviews and there's just plain bitchin'! The app is not to blame for this.

The app technically works yes, but the company removed a function from that app, that is worthy of a poor review.

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 10:51am

Thematics wrote: »

A lot was done about the financial crash, much more stringent regulatory requirements were introduced for banks to make them more resilient in distressed markets. We saw that pay off during the volatily of the covid pandemic. Banks balance sheets remained strong. One area that was overlooked was the shadow banking sector, this are needs greater regulation. The shadow banking sector also provide valuable services to the economy.

None of that addresses the central problem though, which is that currency - one of the most fundamental concepts invented by humans to make sense of how to run a civilisation as large as ours - is controlled by private actors with skin in the game, and not by public actors whose sole purpose is to benefit society overall.

As long as that paradigm continues, this entire area will be regarded as a problem by many people.

This paragraph is from Wikipedia:

A stock market crash is often defined as a sharp dip in share prices of stocks listed on the stock exchanges. In parallel with various economic factors, a reason for stock market crashes is also due to panic and investing public's loss of confidence. Often, stock market crashes end speculative economic bubbles.

There have been famous stock market crashes that have ended in the loss of billions of dollars and wealth destruction on a massive scale.

An increasing number of people are involved in the stock market, especially since the social security and retirement plans are being increasingly privatized and linked to stocks and bonds and other elements of the market. There have been a number of famous stock market crashes like the Wall Street Crash of 1929, the stock market crash of 1973–4, the Black Monday of 1987, the Dot-com bubble of 2000, and the Stock Market Crash of 2008.

This is insane. The moving and shaking of numbers on balance sheets which should have no material effect on anything other than their own little bubble (for example, Gamestop shares, which should have no bearing on anything other than the company itself) is llterally now inextricably linked with whether millions of people around the world will be broke in retirement or not. That is not what the stock market was ever intended to be. It has become an entity entirely divorced from its original purpose and has adopted an extremely dangerous role in modern society which should, by all logic of how democratic nations are supposed to operate, be filled by a public, non profit, government agency. Not a casino full of greedy f*ckers like the people in charge of Melvin Capital.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:53am

Thematics wrote: »

Who is intentionally fukcing people over, do you you have an example?

Do you have a problem with people investing their own wealth?

There is merit in considering new banking structures, but you seem to have a strange gripe with banks for performing a service for you. If you hate having your wages in the bank take it up with your employer. They are the ones who transfer your wages to your bank account.

where do you start! monopolisation in its entirety!

this is why im in favor of more democratic banking options such as public bankig

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 10:54am

Thematics wrote: »

Who is intentionally fukcing people over, do you you have an example?

Do you have a problem with people investing their own wealth?

There is merit in considering new banking structures, but you seem to have a strange gripe with banks for performing a service for you. If you hate having your wages in the bank take it up with your employer. They are the ones who transfer your wages to your bank account.

I could cite numerous ways in which the private nature of the financial system f*cks ordinary people but in Ireland's case I'll give you the obvious one: Anglo. Private company, private greed, small cabal of rich c*nts. You, me, and everyone else on this thread robbed blind to pay for their mistakes.

That simply should not be possible. Private companies which are not accountable to democratic control should not have anything close to this kind of power. No power should reside beyond the reach of democratic accountability. None.

McFly85 · 29-01-2021 10:55am

It's been a fascinating few days. I haven't bought any GME but I have been keeping an eye on the price to see how long the story goes.

I'd have to agree with Chamath ultimately - Wallstreet got it wrong and got punished for it. Complaining that the rules aren't fair just because you've lost money is nonsense(although the rules aren't fair, shorting at 140% seems like it shouldn't be allowed to happen in the first place)

Are GameStop being overvalued? Yes, there are a lot of people looking to purely make money off the situation(you could cleary see yesterday afternoon that a lot of people had $450 as their get out price) but I think you could say the same the other way before the squeeze.

Personally, I did enjoy these hedge funds take a hit-something about short selling has always rubbed me the wrong way. At least with a long position you ultimately help the company you've invested in. I think you could only argue that short selling has a value if the profits made are used to invest somewhere else-otherwise it's purely gambling.

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 10:56am

Thematics wrote: »

The main purpose of credit is not to drive up asset prices, the purpose of credit is to provide financing. Asset price infaltion is simply a consequence of credit creation, not a purpose.

It should be, but those in charge have corrupted the system to be the exact reverse of what you're talking about, and that's precisely why those people should be the people we vote for and not people who are entirely beyond the reach of you or I in terms of blowback.

Credit is vital for a healthy economy and minimising poverty

And there's absolutely no reason credit couldn't be sourced from a public, non profit entity (hey, ever heard of a central bank) which would cut out any possibility of anyone engaging in shenanigans which couldn't be directly reversed at source once they were discovered.

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 10:58am

Thematics wrote: »

A lot has changed, a cornucopia of new regulations were introduced. Banks are much better capitalised today and that has been vindciated in 2020 thanks to the good work that was done by regulators.

The main purpose of credit is not to drive up asset prices, the purpose of credit is to provide financing. Asset price infaltion is simply a consequence of credit creation, not a purpose.

Credit is vital for a healthy economy and minimising poverty

....again, nothing has truly changed, and this is 'clearly obvious', and the people have had enough, hence election and voting outcomes of late, trump, brexit, and now even the gamestop situation etc etc

reality is, credit is exactly doing that, continually driving up asset prices, and again, this only truly benefits asset owners, which again, ownership is heavily skewed

credit is indeed a critical societal need, but only if it truly benefits all, and is not used to simply indebt all

dhaughton99 · 29-01-2021 11:03am

WrenBoy wrote: »

Birds of a feather and all that... :rolleyes::rolleyes:
"Google salvaged Robinhood’s one-star rating by deleting nearly 100,000 negative reviews"

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store

Big tech in collaboration with Wall St? Who da thunk it!

Treppen · 29-01-2021 11:04am

I got in and out of GameStop before Christmas... Thought I was bleedin Warren Buffet making €40 :pac:

Mike Murdock · 29-01-2021 11:05am

Thematics wrote: »

Who is intentionally fukcing people over, do you you have an example?

Do you have a problem with people investing their own wealth?

There is merit in considering new banking structures, but you seem to have a strange gripe with banks for performing a service for you. If you hate having your wages in the bank take it up with your employer. They are the ones who transfer your wages to your bank account.

AIB knowingly overcharging their customers multiple times and not one fiducary officer jailed.

The tracker scandal where multiple banks screwed up coming up with a product that cost them and so tried to "****" over their customers.

Again, small fines and not one officer in these companies going to jail.

And this is just retail banking.

Care to defend?

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 11:05am

Thematics wrote: »

They didn't have that kind of power, the government chose to bail out banks with tax payer money. Hence tighter regulation has been introduced since to prevent such scenarios. It wasn't the intention of banks to fukc people over, they were simply unaware of the true level of risks in the pursuit of profit. And unfortunatelythe tax payer picked up the tab.

bullsh1t, theres loads of proof that elements of society realised what was going on within the financial sector, prior to the 08 crash, and realised it was more than likely gonna leading to a significant crash

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 11:06am

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....again, nothing has truly changed, and this is 'clearly obvious', and the people have had enough, hence election and voting outcomes of late, trump, brexit, and now even the gamestop situation etc etc

reality is, credit is exactly doing that, continually driving up asset prices, and again, this only truly benefits asset owners, which again, ownership is heavily skewed

credit is indeed a critical societal need, but only if it truly benefits all, and is not used to simply indebt all

Mike Murdock · 29-01-2021 11:08am

Thematics wrote: »

They didn't have that kind of power, the government chose to bail out banks with tax payer money. Hence tighter regulation has been introduced since to prevent such scenarios. It wasn't the intention of banks to fukc people over, they were simply unaware of the true level of risks in the pursuit of profit. And unfortunatelythe tax payer picked up the tab.

zom · 29-01-2021 11:09am

So this is really new norm of controlling of world financing? Can we at least know who are people controlling us?

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0129/1193795-restrictions-hit-small-investors-behind-gamestop-surge/
restrictions-hit-small-investors-behind-gamestop-surge

hatrickpatrick · 29-01-2021 11:12am

Thematics wrote: »

They didn't have that kind of power, the government chose to bail out banks with tax payer money. Hence tighter regulation has been introduced since to prevent such scenarios. It wasn't the intention of banks to fukc people over, they were simply unaware of the true level of risks in the pursuit of profit. And unfortunatelythe tax payer picked up the tab.

If governments around the world hadn't bailed out the banks, so we were told, the entire world's economy would have collapsed. Even though there would still have been the same number of workers, same number of resources, same amount of knowledge, same number of hungry people, etc etc etc etc.

If that doesn't point to an artificial sector having utterly incomprehensible amounts of power over society, I don't know what does. Because a group of companies which move numbers around on computer screens fell apart, the circulation of goods and services came very close to the brink of collapse.

That shouldn't be possible. Never mind that it was the result of bad behaviour, never mind that it was the result of incompetence, never mind that it was the result of malice. That's irrelevant. The point is, it should not be possible.

The success or failure of a company which invents an entirely artificial entity known as currency does not affect harvests. It does not affect the weather. It does not affect peoples' health. It does not affect the number of natural resources in the ground. It does not affect the number of animals or plants on the planet.

Therefore, the idea that it should affect whether or not individual humans who have never had any dealings with that company can eat, or clothe themselves, is f*cking MENTAL.

That, in a nutshell, is why the system shouldn't be private. If we as a species are going to designate the fiat system as our way of easily enabling barter between people (and that's fundamentally all money is, a representation of trading one thing of value for another, be it a commodity, labour, whatever) then it should be immensely, unimaginably obvious that we as a species should have control over it. Not a tiny, tiny subset of our species which doesn't mind tipping the scales to sh!t on the rest of us so that tiny subset can walk away with billions.

zom · 29-01-2021 11:29am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If governments around the world hadn't bailed out the banks, so we were told, the entire world's economy would have collapsed.

Taking 10 or 20 billions from few richest people in the world doesn't automatically means "world's economy collapsed".

In the meantime manhunt escalates:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/29/facebook-shuts-popular-robinhood-stock-traders-group-amid-gamestop-frenzy?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_gu&utm_medium&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1611900572
Facebook shuts popular Robinhood Stock Traders group amid GameStop frenzy

Wanderer78 · 29-01-2021 11:31am

zom wrote: »

Taking 10 or 20 billions from few richest people in the world doesn't automatically means "world's economy collapsed".

we had no choice but to continue with the bailouts, it more than likely would have lead to a catastrophic collapse is we didnt, but we did have a choice in what occurred afterwards, primarily imposing austerity measures, which was beyond stupid, and dangerous

zom · 29-01-2021 11:34am

Would be great if nobody remember Island in 2008, wouldn't it?
Iceland is the only nation that put top finance executives behind bars after the 2008 crisis. Still, fears of crony capitalism remain

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-to-iceland-where-bad-bankers-go-to-prison

29-01-2021 11:36am

zom wrote: »

Would be great if nobody remember Island in 2008, wouldn't it?
Iceland is the only nation that put top finance executives behind bars after the 2008 crisis. Still, fears of crony capitalism remain

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-03-31/welcome-to-iceland-where-bad-bankers-go-to-prison

Like NZ and vietnam in coronavirus response....this deosnt fit the narrative of irish media....

so icelands responce here deosnt count....because,thats why..... :shrugshoulders:

Reddit/Gamestop vs.Wall Street

Comments