Reddit/Gamestop vs.Wall Street

Mike Murdock

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

zom

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:

Doctor Roast

dhaughton99 wrote: »

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

Strangely enough I've tried posting that link on a few YouTube videos I've been following closely over this whole ordeal.... It vanishes instantly

Abel Ruiz

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

Why does everyone say Iceland is the ONLY nation???

Denis Casey, ex PTSB ce.
Willie McAteer and John Bowe too.

David Drum went to prison also.

Wanderer78

Thematics wrote: »

That's called hindsight bias. I assume these people are all rich living off the profits of their predictions? No, didn't think so.

i call it intelligence and foresight, the folks i follow that foreseen this were far more alarmed of the dangers of a crash, and the harm it would do to society, and frankly have strong morals and ethics, so busied themselves warning us of these dangers, rather than trying to maximize their wealth from such knowledge, they still do....

Wanderer78

Thematics wrote: »

There is corruption and fraud in every industry, that's why laws and regulation are important. Where there is opportunity to profit through corruption abd fraud, someone will attempt it. This isn't specific to financial services, this is a truth of himan nature.

If laws are inadequate they should be improved.

so how come we still have serious fraud and frankly dangerous behavior occurring within the financial sector

irishlad.

I've been following this story for the week but there's one thing I'm still wondering....

How do these hedge funds get the share price down in order to fulfill their short bets?

Wanderer78

irishlad. wrote: »

I've been following this story for the week but there's one thing I'm still wondering....

How do these hedge funds get the share price down in order to fulfill their short bets?

simplification of whats occurring

https://twitter.com/avalonpenrose/status/1354501601294131202

twinytwo

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so how come we still have serious fraud and frankly dangerous behavior occurring within the financial sector

Because bankers, big businessmen, judges and politicians all hang out together.

Not a single moral between the lot of them.

Edit.. a recent example here, look at the real reason Cowan was removed as minister... had f all to do with drink driving.

completedit

You probably need to be a bit of a sociopath/narcissist to reach the upper echelons of the banking system in its current form which increases likelihood of such behaviour. That combined with the level of self assuredness you get from winning the game of life(in the sense of monetary gain) and group think creates a feedback loop of self interest where all behaviour is rationalised and justified.

Smee_Again

irishlad. wrote: »

I've been following this story for the week but there's one thing I'm still wondering....

How do these hedge funds get the share price down in order to fulfill their short bets?

What I read was...

When retail investors were blocked from buying (but not selling) yesterday the large hedge funds were buying and selling to each other at decreasing prices but on relatively small volumes to make it look like the price was falling thus making panicking retail investors also sell which the hedge funds were also able to buy (having shorted them too).

This mini-short meant they could cover some of their losses but the total amount of shares shorted has only reduced from 140% to c. 120% so there's a long way to go yet (apparently)

Wanderer78

completedit wrote: »

You probably need to be a bit of a sociopath to reach the upper echelons of the banking system in its current form which increases likelihood of such behaviour. Then group think takes over and a feedback loop ensues.

cluster b personality disorders have been found in reasonable high concentrations, in these sectors

SoapMcTavish

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.

What ?????? :D:D:D

PokeHerKing

completedit wrote: »

You probably need to be a bit of a sociopath to reach the upper echelons of the banking system in its current form which increases likelihood of such behaviour. Then group think takes over and a feedback loop ensues.

Like getting to the top of any organisation you need to be downing the kool aid and fully engaged in hive mind thinking. If you have any independent thought or deviate much from the company line you wont reach the top, hell you wont even reach middle management in a lot of places.

Which ultimately just creates an echo chamber amongst the people making the decisions like you say.

Wanderer78

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Like getting to the top of any organisation you need to be downing the kool aid and fully engaged in hive mind thinking. If you have any independent thought or deviate much from the company line you wont reach the top, hell you wont even reach middle management in a lot of places.

Which ultimately just creates an echo chamber amongst the people making the decisions like you say.

'Gresham's dynamic'!

Wanderer78

Thematics wrote: »

Same reason we stull have serious fraud and dangerous behaviour in the aerospace industry, retail, mining, manifacturing etc. Some people are willing to break the rules in pursuit of self interest. These people will always exist as it is part of human nature.

of course, but how come we tend to be a little more lenient towards such behaviors in the financial sector?

Wanderer78

Thematics wrote: »

Do you think it was the main goal of banker A to fukc over Joe Bloggs? Banker A only cared about making profits, profits was the goal, not fukcing over Joe Bloggs he knows nothing about. Unless Joe Bloggs shagged his wife.

yup, it does indeed seem like some goal setting within the financial sector, was indeed, to fcuk over joe

SoapMcTavish

Thematics wrote: »

Do you think it was the main goal of banker A to fukc over Joe Bloggs? Banker A only cared about making profits, profits was the goal, not fukcing over Joe Bloggs he knows nothing about. Unless Joe Bloggs shagged his wife.

Banker A knows he will always be covered / bailed out. So he fukcs whoever he can. No consequences. Except for Joe.

Thematics

Thematics wrote: »

Ireland's laws are too lenient to everyone. I don't know why Ireland is so lenient for all crimes, in other countries people go to jail for years where in Ireland nothing happens.

Jail is not a deterrent.

Wanderer78

Thematics wrote: »

Ireland's laws are too lenient to everyone. I don't know why Ireland is so lenient for all crimes, in other countries people go to jail for years where in Ireland nothing happens.

debatable of course, but prison isnt much fun

Thematics wrote: »

Well it wasn't, nobody cares about Joe to worry about how to fukc him over.

only that is was, plenty of research out there now to be supporting that, you can be damn sure the financial sector cares about joe, joe needs to be fcuked hard all the time, in order for its survival

seamus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

so how come we still have serious fraud and frankly dangerous behavior occurring within the financial sector

In finance, the aim is never to do what's right. It's to maximise profit, legally.

That "legally" word is very loaded. Consider it a lot like lawyers. A lawyers job is to present the best case for their clent. It doesn't matter if what the client did was morally or ethically right. It doesn't matter if their client is the biggest cvnt on the planet. He could be literally Hitler. The only thing that matters to the lawyer is whether it can be proven that the client broke the law.

The same applies in Finance. Absolutely anything goes, provided its legal. Funding paedophiles? So long as it's legal, no bother. Privatising water supplies? Is it legal? Then have at it! Betting on stock values and manipulating sentiment to drive them down? Well...it's legal...so.

This leads the "best" accountants and financial minds to find ways to circumvent the law by doing things that are technically legal, no matter how shady. Thus you end up with stock shorting; and multi-layered shorting at that. They are for all intents and purposes just big pyramid schemes. But they're technically legal and they make profits, so it's OK!

This is why self-regulation is no regulation at all. You're trusting entire industries to "do the right thing", when the "right thing" to them is "anything that's not completely illegal".

Lone Stone

what app are people using for this now ?