GameStop Stock surges due to meme traders

Gethsemani

Hardcore Feminazi
Legacy
Apr 5, 2020
1,070
849
118
Country
Sweden
It almost seems as if something happened between 1933-1980 that kept economies comparatively stable while averting boom-bust cycles for three generations. But, god forbid we ask what.
Why ask when the answer was already given in 2014 when Piketty released Capital in the 21st Century?
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,829
847
118
We all knew it would happen eventually but it looks like The Diamond Hands finally cracked (or enough did at least). Gamestonk has been sinking steadily all week, ending today at $53.50. It's only a matter of time at this point before it goes back to the normal price...
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
792
675
98
Country
United States
We all knew it would happen eventually but it looks like The Diamond Hands finally cracked (or enough did at least). Gamestonk has been sinking steadily all week, ending today at $53.50. It's only a matter of time at this point before it goes back to the normal price...
Not necessarily. What's currently going on and has been for the past three days, is institutional traders and hedge funds have been spamming the market with low-volume trades at increasingly low bids to astroturf a sell-off. Think of it as a DDoS attack, but for stonk, with the intent being to scare retail investors into panic-closing their positions to cut their losses. As retail traders have been locked out of buying for days, hedgies have had the run of the market which means free reign to artificially suppress the price per-share. $GME's buy:sell ratio and the total trading volume over the past few days don't lie.

Either way, the price right now is still not terribly relevant; the hedgies are still short over 100% of $GME's float which means they're still legally required to buy retail investors' shares back. That in turn means retail investors set the price.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,829
847
118
Not necessarily. What's currently going on and has been for the past three days, is institutional traders and hedge funds have been spamming the market with low-volume trades at increasingly low bids to astroturf a sell-off. Think of it as a DDoS attack, but for stonk, with the intent being to scare retail investors into panic-closing their positions to cut their losses. As retail traders have been locked out of buying for days, hedgies have had the run of the market which means free reign to artificially suppress the price per-share. $GME's buy:sell ratio and the total trading volume over the past few days don't lie.

Either way, the price right now is still not terribly relevant; the hedgies are still short over 100% of $GME's float which means they're still legally required to buy retail investors' shares back. That in turn means retail investors set the price.
I hope so. I have no dog in this fight (well technically I put all the money I had left over in my investment portfolio when GME got to $110; I put $3.05 in! I'd never actually tried trading so I wanted to have something I could buy and sell with no risk to see how exactly it all worked. I have shares of my employers stock that we were gifted a few years ago so I took the Dividends from that for GME) but it's been super fun to watch from the sidelines.

I would love for the ride to keep going if for any other reasoning, it's funny.
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
927
747
98
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
I hope so. I have no dog in this fight (well technically I put all the money I had left over in my investment portfolio when GME got to $110; I put $3.05 in! I'd never actually tried trading so I wanted to have something I could buy and sell with no risk to see how exactly it all worked. I have shares of my employers stock that we were gifted a few years ago so I took the Dividends from that for GME) but it's been super fun to watch from the sidelines.

I would love for the ride to keep going if for any other reasoning, it's funny.
If you want to try trading without the risk of losing money you can try "paper trading." Lets you learn how to trade with virtual money.

 
  • Like
Reactions: tippy2k2

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
8,829
847
118
If you want to try trading without the risk of losing money you can try "paper trading." Lets you learn how to trade with virtual money.

By learning to trade, I was referring to how it actually worked on my Fidelity Account. And with that, it was more what did it actually look like to buy and sell on there. So it's not that I wanted to try to learn how to trade by getting fake stocks or whatnot, it was I wanted to figure out now how trading on my specific platform worked (for example, I found out messing around with my $3.05 of Gamestop Bucks that I can't set a Sell Limit over 150% of what I paid for the stock, which it sounds like is a Fidelity rule, not a Stock Market rule or whatnot).

I don't know how necessary the information I'm learning with Fidelity will be but I'd rather find out now with a couple bucks at stake than try to figure out my first buy and sell process once I find something I actually want to invest in.

Although I do still appreciate the link. I'm going to do very little retail trading (I have two loans at 9% interest rates; while not impossible the "smart" money is to knock those out first since it's unlikely that you'd get over 9% return on an investment)
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Apr 18, 2020
927
747
98
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
By learning to trade, I was referring to how it actually worked on my Fidelity Account. And with that, it was more what did it actually look like to buy and sell on there. So it's not that I wanted to try to learn how to trade by getting fake stocks or whatnot, it was I wanted to figure out now how trading on my specific platform worked (for example, I found out messing around with my $3.05 of Gamestop Bucks that I can't set a Sell Limit over 150% of what I paid for the stock, which it sounds like is a Fidelity rule, not a Stock Market rule or whatnot).

I don't know how necessary the information I'm learning with Fidelity will be but I'd rather find out now with a couple bucks at stake than try to figure out my first buy and sell process once I find something I actually want to invest in.

Although I do still appreciate the link. I'm going to do very little retail trading (I have two loans at 9% interest rates; while not impossible the "smart" money is to knock those out first since it's unlikely that you'd get over 9% return on an investment)
Well then remember one important piece of advice from me. If you lose that $3.05 don't forget to write it off on your taxes.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,960
989
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
It should also be noted the same boom-bust cycle happened between 1873-1929 with the same pattern, root causes, roughly equivalent rapidity, and leaps in technological process. It almost seems as if something happened between 1933-1980 that kept economies comparatively stable while averting boom-bust cycles for three generations. But, god forbid we ask what.
There was also recession in 49, 53/4 and 58, 60/1 and 69. (Discounting the obvious Dpression, stagflation, and war periods.) .... Very stable
 

Revnak

We must imagine Sisyphus horny
Legacy
May 25, 2020
2,617
2,529
118
Country
USA
There was also recession in 49, 53/4 and 58, 60/1 and 69. (Discounting the obvious Dpression, stagflation, and war periods.) .... Very stable
Those were much less significant in consequence.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
806
270
68
So is your argument to scrap the welfare state in entirety then?
No, but it should be more fair for everyone involved. Like I said I think it's more fair for an assembly line worker to pay less tax than more just to subsidize someone's liberal arts degree.


They're paying for someone's education. If the student wants to party, that's what they do on their own money. And besides, I can't help but note that the poor have substantial discretion over how to spend their welfare cheques.
Where I live students can take interest free loans that accumulated in an outstanding amount of billions of euros left-wing government don't really care about, so I beg to differ.

So we need to scrap welfare and social services because they just makes people hate each other? And it's going to peace and love without welfare and social services, is it?
I wasn't saying social services in specific I was saying how politics thrive on exploiting differences between people. Like crime rate for example, incarceration figures or social services or healthcare. When one group is disproportionally hugging up resources then yeah ofcourse this leads to discontent.

Basically, suck it up. Because there aren't as many of these people as the right wing would have you believe, and we don't spend much money on them. The UK spends about £160 billion on welfare every year: that's about 8% GDP. Half of that is the old age pension. The remaining ~£80 billion (4% GDP) covers a wide range of things (child benefit, sick pay, unemployment benefits, income credits for working families, disability support, carer allowances etc.) For a start, it's just 4% GDP, and the vast majority is going to honest people trying to work. Overpayment (which is not all fraud) is estimated at 2.5% of that £80 billion, so, call it £2 billion (0.1% GDP). Basically, fuck all.
That just isn't true. Per capita maybe which just demonstrates how little low incomes already contribute. If you take the entire package of social services, welfare and other related payments plus collective healthcare with which it obviously overlaps you have like 50-60% of the total budget. Atleast half of what people pay in taxes go to collective services. It's a system of payers and receivers. Just look at a pie chart to see where the money goes. Also don't forget people are getting older, needier yet costs in eg healthcare continue to balloon with more expensive treatments every day. The receivers are exponentially growing yet the payers are declining in size. How is such a system sustainable in the first place?


I'm never interested in these claims, because they are always just words that don't survive scrutiny with the data, as per the above. Right-wing talking points endlessly repeated again and again like a mantra, enlivened with the most inflammatory anecdotes to stoke outrage rather than sober reflection.
I agree most time people aren't dishonest but it's no secret that in welfare states the bureaucracies often put very little effort in guiding people to work, even subsidized work. Now if these people often also have an immigration background then yeah, you can't just shrug it off as 'anecdotal'.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
806
270
68
It's certainly true that governments claim more control than reality over the economy when things are going well and less control than reality when things are going badly.

Sure, much of the day-to-day economy occurs outside government control. Long-term growth is usually due to productivity gains from technology, much outside the control of government. But governments can do a lot. They set the laws and regulations, build infrastructure, "pump-prime". They may not be able to predict or prevent recessions, but they can most certainly mitigate the consequences and speed up recovery.

I am immensely suspicious of the ultra-rich, because I don't think national economic growth and the general welfare of the population really matters to them. They, and corporations, are interested in making money for themselves. I'm aware capitalist theory via Adam Smith argues that all this self interest drives economic growth, but that doesn't necessarily translate to much for the man on the street. If GDP rises 2% a year with the top 1% getting 10% richer and the bottom 90% getting 0.1% richer, that economic growth is a crock of shit for 90% of the population and they'd be better off with 1.3% a year GDP growth spread evenly across the population.
What does it matter. The western economies are all dependent on trade flow and international supply and demand. It moves with the tides. Government can respond adequately or inadequately but it doesn't control the tide itself. It's also a matter of interpretation. Is increased government spending to save failing businesses smart or is it simply passing the bill to the next generation at little gain for the current moment?

The 'ultra rich' also don't have most of that money on their bank accounts. It's mosty in the stock market and in investment accounts so it also serves a public service by eg increasing the portfolio of a retirement fund and allowing companies to borrow money. That money is so unevenly distributed has more to do with monetary policy and the role of the central banks.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
1,745
1,189
118
Country
United Kingdom
It almost seems as if something happened between 1933-1980 that kept economies comparatively stable while averting boom-bust cycles for three generations. But, god forbid we ask what.
I fail to see what the yo-yo craze had to do with anything.
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
792
675
98
Country
United States
Those were much less significant in consequence.
Stagflation is only famous because it 'broke' the Keysensian model
The irony of these is both were precipitated by a dogged insistence on returning to pre-war/inter-war economic models that were such proven failures they had an entire world war to stand as testament against. In the former case it's bringing up the post-war recession while conveniently omitting the impact of the Morgenthau plan on post-war economic planning and transition to the Marshall plan (even if implemented out of ulterior motive to wage the Cold War); in the latter, the insistence upon and inevitable failure of Bretton Woods compounded by the energy crisis and informal crude oil standard (i.e. petrodollars).
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,960
989
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
The irony of these is both were precipitated by a dogged insistence on returning to pre-war/inter-war economic models that were such proven failures they had an entire world war to stand as testament against. In the former case it's bringing up the post-war recession while conveniently omitting the impact of the Morgenthau plan on post-war economic planning and transition to the Marshall plan (even if implemented out of ulterior motive to wage the Cold War); in the latter, the insistence upon and inevitable failure of Bretton Woods compounded by the energy crisis and informal crude oil standard (i.e. petrodollars).
Oooh, when you say 'failures of Bretton Woods' are you talking about gold standard in general, not adjusting the gold price, the US being the reserve currency or Russia sending a spy in to fight for the US becoming the reserve currency in probably one of the biggest own goal in history?

Edit: I assume its the non-adjustment of gold price since that screwed all the other prices but I don't want to assume
 

Eacaraxe

Elite Member
Legacy
May 28, 2020
792
675
98
Country
United States
Oooh, when you say 'failures of Bretton Woods' are you talking about gold standard in general, not adjusting the gold price, the US being the reserve currency or Russia sending a spy in to fight for the US becoming the reserve currency in probably one of the biggest own goal in history?

Edit: I assume its the non-adjustment of gold price since that screwed all the other prices but I don't want to assume
None of the above. I said Bretton Woods' failure was inevitable. I said nothing of why at that point.

But, the exchange rate and any potential adjustments to it weren't terribly relevant, it wouldn't have addressed the root cause of the issue. Pegging a currency to a natural resource of inelastic supply but highly elastic demand just doesn't work in a global marketplace with private money markets. The big issues were what you missed: the US's balance of trade in contrast to its balance of payments were unsustainable, its first major trade deficit in the post-war years was 1967 if I remember right; and, the US simply lost control of the value of the USD abroad, I can't remember off the top of my head when the dollar glut started but it came to a head during Johnson's admin.

Which is why the de facto oil standard was smarter (elastic supply and consistent, predictable YoY growth in demand), but flawed at least insofar as the OPEC countries figured out the game before the US did. If you want to look into the why's and how's of USSR involvement in any of this, look no further than the metric fuckload of fossil fuels under Siberia that were discovered back in the '60s.

Frankly, in my opinion the best-possible move right now the US government could make which would future-proof the USD, would be to peg $1USD to a liter of potable water.