GameStop Stock surges due to meme traders

[hanselthecaretaker]

Why does short selling even exist as a concept?

"Because someone can make money off of it" is the obvious answer, but on some level I thought investing was to provide people with insight into businesses and help them grow stronger if they provided something people see as worthwhile; short selling seems to only have the social benefit that people can make money of the practice.

The uber rich devised a way to play around the rules, because they feel they’re entitled to be above the concept of risk. Having said that, I can’t say there isn’t an advantage sharing privileged info of r/wallstreetbets when they decide on the next big hit, if allowed to continue.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Jim Cramer's telling everybody to sell their meme stock immediately because why go for a grand slam when you already hit a home run.

So, he's back to just not getting it

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Jim Cramer's telling everybody to sell their meme stock immediately because why go for a grand slam when you already hit a home run.

So, he's back to just not getting it

He probably gets it, and it trying to stop it.

 

[Kwak]

Jim Cramer's telling everybody to sell their meme stock immediately because why go for a grand slam when you already hit a home run.

So, he's back to just not getting it

But, winning at tennis isn't winning at baseball.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Jim Cramer's telling everybody to sell their meme stock immediately because why go for a grand slam when you already hit a home run.

So, he's back to just not getting it

No he gets it, and he's on the side of the hedge funds. CNBC is shilling for the hedge funds and purposefully spreading misinformation.

Jim Cramer is a piece of shit. Here's a video of him explaining things he did as a hedge fund manager that he admits are illegal, but hedge funds "should still do anyway" because it's hard for the SEC to catch them doing it.

 

[Trunkage]

 

[Satinavian]

After thinking a bit about it, we should really get rid of hedge funds altogether.

Regular investment in stocks and regular trading can be provided by investment fund. Hedge fund only are about getting rich from volatility and as such they have an interest in making the market less stable and they also have a habit to inflate trade volume just to get more trades (which each gives them a marging and an ability to increase volatility).

While there is not yet a good replacement for the stock exchange itself, there is nothing useful hedgefunds provide to society. It is just some vehicle to get richt faster from stocks than the economic development would naturally provide for by crafting a derivative based fantasy economy.

 

[Revnak]

After thinking a bit about it, we should really get rid of hedge funds altogether.

Regular investment in stocks and regular trading can be provided by investment fund. Hedge fund only are about getting rich from volatility and as such they have an interest in making the market less stable and they also have a habit to inflate trade volume just to get more trades (which each gives them a marging and an ability to increase volatility).

While there is not yet a good replacement for the stock exchange itself, there is nothing useful hedgefunds provide to society. It is just some vehicle to get richt faster from stocks than the economic development would naturally provide for by crafting a derivative based fantasy economy.

They’ll just replace them with something just like hedge funds that do the same things as hedge funds but don’t break anti-hedge fund laws.

 

[Agema]

The uber rich devised a way to play around the rules, because they feel they’re entitled to be above the concept of risk. Having said that, I can’t say there isn’t an advantage sharing privileged info of r/wallstreetbets when they decide on the next big hit, if allowed to continue.

After thinking a bit about it, we should really get rid of hedge funds altogether.

There's an argument that anything should be doable unless society prevents it, as a basic concept of liberty. This in many ways explains the more bizarre aspects of the stock market: what can they invent to do with "their" money? It would be up to us to make rules to explicitly stop them. Certainly, they need to be able to lose their money without being bailed out by hte taxpayer.

One might argue with GameStop that it's an obsolete company in a death spiral: so it is more "efficient" in the big picture to put it out its misery ASAP and reallocate the workers and resources to something more productive sooner rather than later. What the 14,000 employees are going to do in the short term is not really of much interest in this sort of big picture consideration. Also I think there are a substantial number of viable companies that finance assassinates this way, just because it's convenient to them to make personal profit. Here again, the argument might one of "efficiency", that these firms are deemed to have modest returns or prospects, and the resources can instead be funnelled to better opportunities. Needless to say, I think there are substantial problems with this.

 

[gorfias]

Man, I don't recall 2008 to be that bad but I had also just gotten out of college and got murdered trying to find a job so I ended up having to take some shit level iPod Tech Support job for some company that wasn't even Apple (just a "Third Party Partner, though we identified ourselves as Apple when people called).

So I suppose it did suck in 08 for me but I kind of assumed that was just because I jumped into the job market at an incredibly shit time. His description makes it sound like a lot of people had my problem except they were already older with careers and mortgages and shit that they lost and had to settle for their own shit level job at Fake-Apple like I did...

Me and the missus lost about 1/3 of our savings, and we were in our late 40s by then and had saved a lot. I had just completed a one year contract and had to find a new job. One "job fair" I attended had a line around the block of people waiting for their turn to go through the job hosts. Inside, the jobs at offer were things like, selling swimming pool chemicals and such other minimum wage clerk type jobs. I was very lucky that someone from my past reached out to me with an opportunity, which I got. He said the company would slow walk the opportunity if I didn't push, so I pushed as he said he needed me yesterday. Right after I was hired, the company did a hiring freeze that would last a couple of years. Me and the missus count our blessings daily since then. 2008 for us was that bad and dangerous to us. And no one one responsible did a day in prison. Heck, some of the biggest contributors to this crisis were given aid by the government from our tax dollars.

There's an argument that anything should be doable unless society prevents it, as a basic concept of liberty. This in many ways explains the more bizarre aspects of the stock market: what can they invent to do with "their" money? It would be up to us to make rules to explicitly stop them. Certainly, they need to be able to lose their money without being bailed out by hte taxpayer.

One might argue with GameStop that it's an obsolete company in a death spiral: so it is more "efficient" in the big picture to put it out its misery ASAP and reallocate the workers and resources to something more productive sooner rather than later. What the 14,000 employees are going to do in the short term is not really of much interest in this sort of big picture consideration. Also I think there are a substantial number of viable companies that finance assassinates this way, just because it's convenient to them to make personal profit. Here again, the argument might one of "efficiency", that these firms are deemed to have modest returns or prospects, and the resources can instead be funnelled to better opportunities. Needless to say, I think there are substantial problems with this.

GameStop may yet change their business model and become a powerhouse again. I doubt they will. But suppose they are the next "OnLive" and it works as the infrustucture is better now than then, for instance (it isn't improved yet enough, but for the sake of argument). In a free market, if someone is trying to push Humpty Dumpty from the wall for "everyone's own good", that is a problem.

Market manipulation is supposed to be illegal but I fear we can expect selective prosecution. The Hedge Fund types can borrow to short a bunch of "Hilton" stock, then go on TV and call it worthless. That happens. We'll see if any of the GameStop revolutionaries get busted as online, they stated the purpose was to hurt the Hedge Funds.

 

[Agema]

GameStop may yet change their business model and become a powerhouse again. I doubt they will. But suppose they are the next "OnLive" and it works as the infrustucture is better now than then, for instance (it isn't improved yet enough, but for the sake of argument). In a free market, if someone is trying to push Humpty Dumpty from the wall for "everyone's own good", that is a problem.

I am not sure what the future for GameStop could be. The obvious idea to modernise would be to invest in an online delivery platform - but that just runs straight into Steam et al and they have no experience in that. Or to use their premises and redesign for... something. But it's hard to know what.

I would think the general idea is that Humpty Dumpty cannot be pushed from the wall as long as he is valuable: as long as someone thinks he's worthwhile, someone will stave off destruction, and so the "invisible hand" will see the best is done. But I think the markets do run round destroying valuable companies, through ignorance, for narrow-minded profits. An ex-colleague of mine told me about a scientific equipment company they used. It was small, but with a decent user base and reliable if unexceptional profits. A venture capital firm bought it and then just liquidated it for a tax break: easy as that. So there goes their equipment, have to buy new stuff because no-one's left to maintain the old. This goes on without oversight and societal debate, and places our society increasingly in the hands of people who are not transparent, accountable, or interested in our society's general wellbeing.

Market manipulation is supposed to be illegal but I fear we can expect selective prosecution. The Hedge Fund types can borrow to short a bunch of "Hilton" stock, then go on TV and call it worthless. That happens. We'll see if any of the GameStop revolutionaries get busted as online, they stated the purpose was to hurt the Hedge Funds.

I read very mixed information on this affair. Some is that what some GameStop supporters did is indeed illegal (for whatever reason) - it's merely lack of knowledge of the industry that means amateur commentators don't realise. But I'm absolutely sure that financial firms and investors play fast and loose: going onto media to talk up or down stocks they have vested interests in. Perhaps they have some sort of free speech defence, that they are entitled to voice their opinions.

 

[tippy2k2]

Me and the missus lost about 1/3 of our savings, and we were in our late 40s by then and had saved a lot. I had just completed a one year contract and had to find a new job. One "job fair" I attended had a line around the block of people waiting for their turn to go through the job hosts. Inside, the jobs at offer were things like, selling swimming pool chemicals and such other minimum wage clerk type jobs. I was very lucky that someone from my past reached out to me with an opportunity, which I got. He said the company would slow walk the opportunity if I didn't push, so I pushed as he said he needed me yesterday. Right after I was hired, the company did a hiring freeze that would last a couple of years. Me and the missus count our blessings daily since then. 2008 for us was that bad and dangerous to us. And no one one responsible did a day in prison. Heck, some of the biggest contributors to this crisis were given aid by the government from our tax dollars.

I suppose it makes sense, I just never thought enough about it. I wasn't able to get a job that a college grad "should" have gotten but all of those entry level positions were going to people who had years of experience because they had been fired/let go. I never really thought about it from that end that those people taking the job that I was "supposed" to get would be taking huge hits in that process as well as they'd likely be going from career jobs (and the money that comes with that) back down to the bottom of the ladder.

(Note: I'm putting "should" and "supposed" to in quotes as those are the things society tells you, not necessarily things that are true in real life. I've found that what society said I'm "supposed" to get as a college graduate and what we actually get are two VERY different things)

 

[gorfias]

I read very mixed information on this affair. Some is that what some GameStop supporters did is indeed illegal (for whatever reason) - it's merely lack of knowledge of the industry that means amateur commentators don't realise. But I'm absolutely sure that financial firms and investors play fast and loose: going onto media to talk up or down stocks they have vested interests in. Perhaps they have some sort of free speech defence, that they are entitled to voice their opinions.

To avoid selective prosecution, we should consider ending many of the laws that just seem to protect big players. I've read that, for instance, in Japan, there are no laws against "insider trading". Here in the US, I'm sure plenty of it goes on, just not by the 99%.
There are things that are speech but are not protected, such as conspiracy to commit a crime like fraud, murder, racketeering, etc. That goes for stock manipulation.

I suppose it makes sense, I just never thought enough about it. I wasn't able to get a job that a college grad "should" have gotten but all of those entry level positions were going to people who had years of experience because they had been fired/let go. I never really thought about it from that end that those people taking the job that I was "supposed" to get would be taking huge hits in that process as well as they'd likely be going from career jobs (and the money that comes with that) back down to the bottom of the ladder.

(Note: I'm putting "should" and "supposed" to in quotes as those are the things society tells you, not necessarily things that are true in real life. I've found that what society said I'm "supposed" to get as a college graduate and what we actually get are two VERY different things)

College over all has been way over sold. And we do push kids into it. And then call the kids "entitled" if they don't want to do the types of jobs we told them they needed college to avoid. So far, I am lucky. My daughter is doing well with a business degree while the boy is doing well in the trades. But she has a degree in Business. Her friend with a degree in "art therapy" is having a more challenging time of it all. And we kinda told her she wouldn't.

 

[Agema]

To avoid selective prosecution, we should consider ending many of the laws that just seem to protect big players. I've read that, for instance, in Japan, there are no laws against "insider trading". Here in the US, I'm sure plenty of it goes on, just not by the 99%.

I suspect insider trading is a substantial part of what it's about at the top level. I'm sure there's plenty of legitimate stuff: keeping an eye on technologies, media, rumour, fashions and so on. But who on earth thinks that people waving around these sums of money wouldn't cultivate and use contacts, friends, even outright spies who know things in key firms and are happy to pass on little tips and hints?

I think there's a reasonable argument for insider trading to not be illegal: just let them do it. I have no intrinsic problem with the idea of a professional class of share traders liable to outperform amateurs, I have a problem with a brokenly uneven wealth distribution that allows the super-rich to do as they please.

 

[tippy2k2]

College over all has been way over sold. And we do push kids into it. And then call the kids "entitled" if they don't want to do the types of jobs we told them they needed college to avoid. So far, I am lucky. My daughter is doing well with a business degree while the boy is doing well in the trades. But she has a degree in Business. Her friend with a degree in "art therapy" is having a more challenging time of it all. And we kinda told her she wouldn't.

Going to college was easily the biggest mistake of my life (and I've made a LOT of mistakes so that's saying something). I'm 13 years removed from school and I'm STILL paying for the fucking thing. My entire adult life has been hamstrung by a $450 an extra month bill for some worthless piece of paper that likely held me back more than has actively helped me in life. I spent the first year or so after college jobless as those asshole Boomers yelled at me to settle for flipping burgers so that I had a job when they specifically and actively told me I fucking HAD to go to college so that I wouldn't be stuck with a job flipping burgers. Fuck every single one of those assholes with the rustiest of rusty spoons.

I still think college has a place but unless your profession NEEDS a degree (like...doctor or lawyer or some shit), I'd tell anyone and everyone to strongly consider skipping it. If you do decide to go, don't make my mistake and get seduced by all the bullshit bells and whistles some private asshole college has and find a school that actually fits what you need.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Jim Cramer's telling everybody to sell their meme stock immediately because why go for a grand slam when you already hit a home run.

So, he's back to just not getting it

I think a lot of people in Wall Street don't actually get what's going on. This was never about the money. So many years rich asshole got away with so much shit and many people just saw them as untouchable than a random group of Redditor decided to mess with a hedge fund. Then something amazing happened, they started to bleed. Losing billions on their corrupt operation and begging people to stop. For the first time in American history, we made them bleed and unlike the hypocritical USSR we didn't have to stoop to might makes right and bloody massacres. We just messed with the stocks and now we do not want to get rid of this power even if it's a slight financial loss for some.

 

[tstorm823]

I think a lot of people in Wall Street don't actually get what's going on.

This^

They're dealing with wallstreetbets, but they don't seem to appreciate how gambling works. Wall street is waiting for wallstreetbets to treat this like an investment and claim the money they've theoretically made, but the people leading this charge are making bets, not investments, they accepted that their money was gone on day one. They've made their bet and they're riding it to the end.

 

[Gergar12]

View attachment 2880

While I agree that countering-short trades will be regulated, I think that Biden did declare that he would end fossil fuel subsidies like gasoline subsidies first. A step in the right direction. but he hasn't said anything on a price on carbon or carbon tax.

I don't care if gas prices are as high as California given remote work, but if they aren't oh well. Granted Biden should use carbon taxes to subsidized public transit, and tackle climate change in America, and abroad, but I think he will just make incremental changes, and historians will ignore him in favor of attacking Trump, and Bush. Maybe a revisionist historian will attack him like Bill Clinton got attacked by some today as he should.

But the problem with the above is that he knows(via his advisers) what he is doing, he knows less action on climate change will cause problems down the road, and give those obligations to the unborn, just like he knows that if a Wall Street firm could get wracked by a few million Reddit users what's to say of Russia, or China doing something worse or more likely those Wall Street street bankrupting themselves, and less advantaged Americans picking up the bill via bailouts. Basically what I want to say is that Biden is hesitant to regulate wall street, and or even remain neutral when Wall Street leads to pensions being replaced with less generous 401Ks, foreclosures, and speculation with money from senior citizens, public employees, and many small businesses. They are in their current state harmful to America, and the world, but the people in power will do nothing to contain them, or even let them fail.

Edit: Okay fine he did say...

"As part of his climate agenda, President-elect Joe Biden promises to pass legislation that “establishes an enforcement mechanism” to curb harmful greenhouse gas emissions."

President-Elect Biden Supports a “Carbon Enforcement Mechanism” – Could that Mean a Price on Carbon? - Harvard Law School

As part of his climate agenda, President-elect Joe Biden promises to pass legislation that “establishes an enforcement mechanism” to curb harmful greenhouse gas emissions.[1] What this means is far from clear. Biden expressed support for a price on carbon emissions during the primary,[2] but...

eelp.law.harvard.edu

But he gives himself wiggle room to not do it, or do less of it. Why doesn't he just say the price on carbon, we literally control every branch of the government as Dems, but he won't even commit to a price on carbon.

Oh, and Gamestop is still at 325 as of right now.

 

[crimson5pheonix]