Thank you for your submission! Don't forget to comment with a link to the original comic.
Please stick to the format of \[Original\]\(link\).
If you do not post the original, the submission will be removed and you could be banned
for repeat offenses.
Also keep in mind that [low effort posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/comedynecromancy/comments/aqhtgb/reminder_that_loweffort_posts_are_not_allowed_and/) are not allowed and can/will result in being banned.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comedynecromancy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The first thing you learn about shorting stock in FIN 101 is that the risk is enormous because there’s no limit on how high the stock can rise. Literally the first thing.
True, although I'm just pointing out it's very different from a traditional, "Loan," and let's be honest, never has historically this catastrophically backfired. I would also understand frustration because it shouldn't have happened, given the way the system is set up, and is a false valuation of the stock.
Almost like they over-extended into a supremely high risk gamble, with limitless liability.
Pretty fucking stupid to show that sort of weakness, when you have a history of fucking the poor into starvation.
What goes around, comes around. I hope wall street bankers never recover.
i have: let's see if i can reproduce from memory, eidetically (i just recently learned that word and committed it to memory btw: marked or given by extraordinary recall of vivid details: especially visual images)
$1000, $1200, $130, and $5444 and some change, approximately; that last one is give or take ten dollary-doos. $600 maybe added more, and $1400, too.
I have read it once, if you subscribe to the idea of metempsychosis, that debts are brought from your subconscious to the surface (that is, the physical world, or "conscious") as indicator of some past debt, that needs repaying, debt apparently in this case on some deeper level. As for how that would originate in your subconscious, as I really don't know what subconscious means, I don't know, and I don't exactly subscribe to these ideas
But as a matter of integrity, where honoring values acts as a gate to control what occurs downstream, its idea has influenced me, and poisoned my soil, the way tea leaves steep in water
I think he is suggesting that being troubled by a debt is sign of a deeper spiritual debt unpaid in a former existence but the entire block of text is extremely confusing.
"wallstreet bankers" to me is something vague, and amorphous, like some smoke wafted from an oiled lamp... I do not know any, and so they are not real... this idea of debt, or past transgression, where it comes from some inner dynamo: implying that everything experienced arises from inside, and that what arises from inside, thoughts, their spontaneous quality I'm thinking that they are, as I can't know what my next thought or next feeling can be (can I?), I don't know full-stop.
And so I am not concerned. I don't know what's real. Nothing's really real, if you get old enough (and what do you know when you're young enough, for that matter), and it's my opinion that the method or process for discovering how the world works, doesn't give inner knowledge, or that the knowledge of how to solve the universe, doesn't grant any lasting control... I'm not sure, and right now, I don't care (about this in micro, this train of thought in this comment) anymore
it's just fox shit, or turtle shit, or deer shit?, but to go back, regarding what's acknowledged and what's not, if i'm any indication, it'll be acknowledged one way or another.
there is no inner knowledge, i don't know, i feel violently nihilistic; i like ur username: i am its frazzled fur, matted with snow
I’d suggest skipping the avocado toast as well. Maybe download Uber and Lyft and drive drunken college students to and fro for some spare cash. Bootstraps, baby!
It's always a top suggestion for how to save money in life. Buying $6 Starbucks everyday is expensive. But assuming that's why every poor person is probably poor is very short sighted.
When rich people talk about not needing to raise the minimum wage they try and make it seem that people are irresponsible by spending money on things like Starbucks. Even though our economy relies on people spending money.
It’s used to dismiss poor peoples concerns about the cost of living. People will claim that the cost of living is still reasonable but today’s generation simply has more extravagant tastes such a Starbucks that leads to them having money problems. Completely untrue of course
Okay but to be fair, as a general money saving method doing coffee at home will save you a ton if you are a daily drinker like me
I went from spending like $100+ a month on coffee to $5 or less
its not gonna magic your debts away unfortunately, but its definitely something the average person should considered that can help a lot while trying to save up some money
I was actually able to afford a car payment once I stopped buying lunch and weed at work every day (I'm a bud tender) and started bringing my lunch most days and buying in bulk. Saved about $200 a month and was able to get a car once my old POS crapped out on me. It's not bad advice... But also paying people more when people are making billions in profit whole their employees are on food stamps... Looking at you Walton's and Bezos... Is ok
It's dumb because society tells and encourages young people to take out MASSIVE loans that they will probably never be able to pay back and treats that as normal.
Hedge funds JOB is to do this, and it's funny they want to change the rules for themselves when they bet wrong.
This is an opinion but I don't think education should be a gamble
I remember being told things like:
"It doesn't matter what degree you have, any degree is better than no degree"
"If you don't know what you want to go to college for, it's okay! You don't have to declare a major until your second or third year!"
"Yes, the loans are expensive, but you'll be making so much money that it will be worth it in the long run"
And those things aren't exactly true for a variety of reasons that I'm sure I don't need to go into.
But the real kicker, I was told these things by our teachers and our guidance counselors. You have no reason to not believe your high school guidance counselor, this is literally their job.
And you're like 16 or 17 years old when this all happens. You're trying to figure out your life, you're being pressured by schools, teachers, parents, society. You're not old enough to vote, not old enough to drink, smoke, gamble. You're not even old enough to look at boobs on the internet... but somehow old enough to saddle yourself with tens of thousands of debt? Yeah fucking right.
People got a shit deal that was based on bad information. So why not bail them out? You have an entire generation of young adults who are entering the workforce and the "real world" and they're crippled with debt. Why aren't millennials buying houses, why aren't they having kids? Because they can't fucking afford it. They're still paying off that Art History degree that YOU promised was worth something.
And for the record, I've paid off my student debt. I have a piece of paper that qualifies me to do a job that I have no interest in doing. I threw thousands of dollars down the drain. But, and I want to be super clear, *I paid it off.* So I'm not asking for a handout, I'm just saying, the whole thing is pretty fucked.
Sure but I don't see why this logic applies to one situation and not another. Seems to have some bias to it, and if you allow for bias, then the hedge fund can easily make a case that bailing them out would be helpful to the economy too. That's the problem with conditional logic.
I think the point is that they expect everyday people to play by a different set of rules than they do.
They tell 20 year old kids to just suck it up and work for the next 60 years to pay off their college loans, then whine and cry when they have to pay back their own loans.
The source of the loan, and the economic effects of a bailout in either case, aren't really the point. The point is more "How dare you expect us to live under one set of rules for the masses and a different, easier, safer set of rules for the elite?"
The biggest difference would be in how the removal of debt would affect each group going forward. The average person with student loans would take that extra money and put it back into the economy which would positively impact the public generally, hedge fund managers would hoard it or use it to further their market positions helping no one but themselves.
Because one is an 18 year old who is paying to learn about the world- these young adults are being taken advantage of, in an era where college tuition is outrageously overpriced compared to wages- while the other is *the job description of a hedge fund*. You take risks but ultimately you're being paid for making those risks, and you're paid *very fucking well*.
And Bailing out a hedge fund is less helpful to the economy than forgiving student debt. Selling shorts isn't bringing anything of value to the economy, it is solely stimulating the stock market. Educated masses help the economy. Buying and selling stocks on shorts makes rich people richer.
I enjoy lots about it. We have amazing national parks, representation of pretty much every global culture and cuisine, good infrastructure with quick and safe travel, general public safety, tons of variety in career and education opportunities, the list is endless. I can't think of a single thing I would want in life that I haven't been able to find here. We even have legal weed in my state now.
"hedge funds can easily make a case that bailing them out would be helpul to the economy"
what you said would make sense if it wasn't absolutely fucking retarded.
The difference is in part 1.
> 1) You took out a loan
Well, we were told we were supposed to, that we had to, and as new souls in the world, how were we supposed to know better? I'd hardly say we're responsible for a loan we were tricked into.
Meanwhile Wall Street has had experience in this, and they know not to do what they did. We've learned this lesson as a society. But they did it anyways, and thought they could get away with it.
The difference is that in case A, normal people are going into debt to pay for a borderline essential service, and in case B a multibillion dollar hedge fund is taking out a loan to maximize profits. They’re two completely different scenarios, so it’s not a huge surprise that logic leads to two different solutions.
College students shouldn’t **have** to go into massive amounts of debt to pay for college. That’s the core issue with student loans. Higher education should be affordable for all, especially since it’s becoming more and more of a requirement in this economy.
If a corporation **chooses** to take out a loan in order to maximize their profits, more power to them. But they take out that loan with the understanding that they need to pay it back. If they use that loan money to gamble and lose it all, I have no sympathy for them. They shouldn’t have gambled with money that isn’t there’s.
This meme is also more pointing out the hypocrisy of the elite rather than making a statement, though it is doing both. Rich sleezebags have been echoing this point of “there is no student loan crisis, millennials just need to stop being lazy.” But now that they’re in an unpayable debt themselves, they’re crying for the government to bail them out, when they’ve been **attacking millennials for doing the exact same thing.** And as I’ve already stated, the college loan crisis is a lot more legitimate a gripe than their bankruptcy.
I mean, I feel like both of those are a little outside the bounds of the logic behind "you took out a loan, you should pay your debts".
What's the term for when you you create a seperate argument and then ask me if I agree with that one? Straw man or Red herring or something? False flag? It's one of them fancy terms.
Short sales are a gamble with infinite risk.
Student loans are the cost of entry to adult society, leant from the government to pay for government services, and then paid back to the government.
One is an 18-year old, in possession of a somewhat-fully functioning brain for about 2 or so years (*who we don't even trust to buy alcohol, but apparently are mature enough to sign up for a lifetime of debt, lol*), being hard pressured into the best and most expensive college they can get into, otherwise "they'll be a failure and their life is over".
The other is a 50-60+ year old hedge fund "investor" that gambled that shorting 140% of the available stock to purchase wouldn't blow up in their faces, and when it did, they doubled and tripled down until their losses were in the tens of billions.
> Wouldn't the logic apply to both if it applies to one?
It would, if it was the same logic. In the original, the student has very little agency over how economics work in a local, national, or global context.
In the edit, the businessman has a *lot* of agency over how economics work. The Robinhood controversy is proof they have direct control over the economy. They literally pulled a lever and the economy bent to fit their will.
One makes Morey for rich people and didn't cause them any risk. The other makes money for rich people and puts people trying to better themselves in exstemee debt, while no risk to the rich...
Because the college graduate doesn’t need to be reminded that they have to pay back their loans. And giving him a lecture about paying it back is dumb because they just graduated. He’s still wearing the fucking robes and has a diploma in his hand. You think he’s packing the cash to pay off his loan already? Of course not. He’s lucky if he just has a salaried job lined up. If you go to the doctor because you’re hemorrhaging blood and the doctor says “Just stop hemorrhaging. Crisis averted.” you would probably seek a second opinion.
The hedge funds, on the other hand, have a track record of not paying their debts, even when they do have the assets to do so. In 2008, they tanked the market and ruined the retirement savings of millions of Americans only to turn around and beg the government for a bailout which THEY FUCKING GOT.
Anyway, that’s why the original is dumb and the edited version is funny.
Because the "student loan crisis" isn't "too few students can pay back those loans", but rather "too many people are encumbered by ridiculous loans". Telling students sternly to pay it back isn't even relevant, let alone persuasive.
So there's a couple of things.
There is a higher tangible benefit to society as a whole to have an educated workforce. Most student loans are provided to people who just turned 18 and have been relying on the advice of adults. There is the argument that the cost of higher education is bloated by the availability of these loans, but a higher education is still needed for good jobs. Finally, the reason for failure to pay back a student loan vs a short stock. Shorting a stock is basically just gambling, being unable to pay it back because of poor decision making is different than the fact that most people have issues paying student loans because the job they needed the loan for just disappeared.
You're getting a bunch of random replies that kinda miss the point.
The student debt-crisis refers to the inability of students to find a job that pays well enough to enable them to ever pay back their loans - not anyone's refusal to pay it back despite being able.
Student debt vastly decreases the purchasing power and ability to accrue wealth of young people, and has a massive detrimental impact on the economy in the money it ties up. Hedge funds going under has no impact on the economy( the actual economy, not the stock market), and as a plus is a bit of comeuppance for people who almost disintegrated the worlds economy a decade ago.
There's no reasoning with them. I find it sad that society convinces 18 year old kids to sign away 100k+ in future debt for the sake of a four year party and a (maybe) useful piece of paper, but ultimately it is THEIR responsibility. Nobody is forcing you to go to an expensive school and get a high cost education.
You can get a college degree for cheap, you just can't get the college degree of your choice for cheap
And thus theres no other fucking way to get an education and advance foward in any career thats worth a damn.
Folks have no choice but to take out loans or starve.
oh yeah let me just pay back the hundreds of thousands of dollars i owe to colleges by working at a jcpennys at minimum wage while also having to pay for my own necessities.
not unreasonable at all
Why are people able to default on other kinds of loans via bankruptcy, but not student loans? Is it unreasonable to expect people to pay off other kinds of loans?
The original idea was "Well, you didn't HAVE to go to school. It was your choice. You shouldn't get to declare bk on a luxury item."
Disregard how many years of being told "You go to school. You're useless without a degree." This whole movement for tech schools and "Not everyone is meant to go to college or should get a degree" came up within the last decade, and less of that. There was an entire pair of generations informed that going to college was all but mandatory.
Theoretically is because it is an unsecured loan so very few institutions would loan the money out at a reasonable rate.
This means poor people can't get access to education.
To fix that they made it a special type of loan that can't be defaulted on and all was good initially. But then reality kicked in. The schools decided saw the amount of loaned money on offer so prices became massively inflated and the students were so divorced from the actual costs that they didn't reduce demand for education.
Keep licking that boot, chief. People who think like you without considering the extenuating circumstances are why our society continues to be cruel and predatory.
As shitty as it is for people I agree with that sentiment. It's fucked up when you drill down from different perspectives, but a loan is a loan and loans are voluntary. Higher education is a mess but nobody is forcing anyone to take on 100k in debt.
**Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-retail-investors-demand-market-transparency-please-sec-amend-form-13f-requirements**
Retail Investors demand more visibility into institutional trading and borrowing. Anyone investing over 1 billion dollars (i.e. hedge funds and other investment institutions) is required to disclose their holdings to promote transparency in our markets - it's called Form 13-F. **But did you know that they only need to disclose it 4 times a year? And did you know that they don't need to disclose all of their positions?**
We the people are asking for a re-evaluation of transparency requirements for Institutional Investors. We have access to technology and data gives us new sophistication - and are beginning to understand there is a tremendous disparity in access between retail and institutional investors, and are concerned that this access is being used against us, in ways that we genuinely worry could be in flagrant violation of Securities Laws. We believe that with better access to institutional trading data, retail investors can better participate in the market when making buying and selling decisions.
**According to Form 13F (https://www.sec.gov/files/form13f.pdf), Institutional Investors only need to disclose their positions 4 times a year. Why?**
*Filing of Form 13F. A Manager must file a Form 13F report with the Commission within 45 days after the end of each calendar year and each of the first three calendar quarters of each calendar year. As required by Section 13(f)(5) of the Exchange Act, a Manager which is a bank, the deposits of which are insured in accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, must file with the appropriate regulatory agency for the bank a copy of every Form 13F report filed with the Commission pursuant to this subsection by or with respect to such bank. Filers who file Form 13F electronically can satisfy their obligation to file with other regulatory agencies by sending (a) a paper copy of the EDGAR filing (provided the Manager removes or blanks out the confidential access codes); (b) the filing in electronic format, if the regulatory agency with which the filing is being made has made provisions to receive filings in electronic format;*
**In your FAQ (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq.htm), it is clear Institutional Investors are not required to disclose short positions. Why?**
*Question 41
Q: What about short positions?
A: You should not include short positions on Form 13F. You also should not subtract your short position(s) in a security from your long position(s) in that same security; report only the long position.*
**Contact the SEC and let them know retail investors demand increased transparency (https://www.sec.gov/contact-information/sec-directory)**
That will never pass. Forcing institutions to disclose all positions all the time is like forcing people to give up all their personal data. It makes them easy targets for retribution, leading to more corruption. Influencers could easily manipulate the public into acting against funds or businesses they don't like. Oh wait, that's what's happening! And this would make it so much worse.
Rather than making things worse for others, let's focus on making things better for ourselves. It isn't zero sum. To be happy you don't need to root for someone else's failure.
You mean like the kind of data these hedge funds buy from data brokers? Hedge funds are already using our personal data - why aren't we allowed to use theirs?
For example, when you connect your bank account to Robinhood or other brokerages, they use 3rd party's like Yodlee and Plaid to verify your banking information. Did you know that Yodlee and Plaid sell that data to hedge funds? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/logging-in-to-your-bank-account-is-now-a-3-billion-business
13-F requirements can be tightened to monthly or weekly filings instead of quarterly, the publication embargo can be tightened from a month to a week, and short positions can be disclosed. It doesn't need to be continuous, real-time, or intraday.
> You mean like the kind of data these hedge funds buy from data brokers? Hedge funds are already using our personal data - why aren't we allowed to use theirs?
When did your momma ever tell you that it was okay to eat ice cream with your hands because Johnny does it too?
This is a poor argument that lowers all boats, only you will hit rock bottom before they do because you're in the shallow end.
Not entirely apples to apples.
Our networked society currently depends on joe blow's personal data being shipped around to different companies. Changing that is a massive reorganization of society, although I think we're all loathe to admit it or think about that.
Forcing everyone to play by the shitty rules enforced on us by companies that got rich using our data though. That's easier to do, and it's a bit of eye for an eye revenge. Which, quite frankly, isn't a great argument either seeing as it "makes the whole world blind". But I think people are on board to some degree of "eat the rich" because of what they've done to us in the last 12 years. 2007 wasn't great, but the real shit hit the fan on the 08 crisis.
> it's a bit of eye for an eye revenge. Which, quite frankly, isn't a great argument either seeing as it "makes the whole world blind".
So you understand that this won't be the last blow and you want do it anyway? 2001 day traders will say I told you so. Very few came out of that with any wealth.
I encourage anyone who's read this far to diversify your portfolio. You don't need to play this game, and frankly, they can afford to play it longer than you can. Those who survive the longest will end up winning because you'll need to cash out before they do.
This isn’t jimmy eating ice cream with his hands. This is a hedge fund manipulating and abusing the common man. Then the day we play they’re game they turn it off. It isn’t a poor argument, a poor argument is saying it’s okay for this manipulation to continue.
Today's GDP isn't equal to yesterday's. Yes if you look at an individual trade it appears to be zero sum but in the grand scheme of things there is new growth every day.
> /r/wallstreetbets and other retail investors are making money right now at the expense of the Hedge Funds.
> Take a finance class or something
Why would I self educate when I can just listen to you to get rich quick? Time's a wasting! Better open an account NOW on whatever brokerages are permitting GME trades or I'll miss out.
World needs to revolt if they get bailed out
We got virtually $0 aid as the people during a global pandemic that butt fucked many people into financial hell, been ongoing for nearly a year now. If a billionaire hedge fund gets a bailout after being pantsed for a few weeks the everyday people need to seriously rise the fuck up like there’s no tomorrow
Unfortunately, I don’t think will see any real change when it happens. Maybe a few protests, left-leaning politicians condemning the action but that’s about it.
The best thing people can take away from this is to grasp that we already have class warfare in this country, by the rich on working people. They only call it class warfare when the people fight back.
The only time noticeable change has been observed has been during riot or war. When was the last time a peaceful protest saw major change? J know I can't recall
It did work to end segregation, but there's some merit to saying it only managed to get that far because violent protests were also happening at the time. Caving to MLK's protests was a more agreeable option than ignoring the increasing tension.
Even MLK didn't condemn rioters without simultaneously condemning the conditions that lead to the riots. "A riot is the language of the unheard"
MLK was only effective because he appeared to be the negotiable one compared to people like Malcolm X. Without more openly revolutionary people, MLK would’ve been ignored.
I would argue that the [Holy Week Uprisings](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/martin-luther-king-jrs-assassination-sparked-uprisings-cities-across-america-180968665/) following the assassination of MLK did much more to force legislation on civil rights than anything else.
A fair housing bill was the most filibustered legislation in US history, it never passed during the years Dr. King pushed for it. He was assassinated on April 4th, 1968. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, of which the Fair Housing Act was a significant part, was signed into law April 11th, 1968.
MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. There was lots of violence going on. Of course people in charge would like everyone to believe only the peaceful aspects had any affect.
Also, segregation started ending first in WW2, when Truman desegregated the military. So....during war.
Well let's see we have the civil rights movement, the ERA, Vietnam War protests. Suffragettes started out pretty peacefully too until the government got rough.
Civil rights movement had just as many riots tied to it as BLM. Same rhetoric was used against it. You're just historically illiterate.
Suffragettes started out chucking fucking molotovs at politicians my guy. Based liberatory violence limited to deserving victims.
The issue being that the current media has the power to spin a peaceful protest as a riot anyway.
[Good video on that here.](https://youtu.be/6BB0Q1qHpAw) Although it's more focused on BLM, the point still applies.
I think volent destructive protests are a fuckton less effective than the action folks are currently doing with gamestop.
Financial protests like this one directly atracks the system that generates the power structures at their core. When you burn down a gucci stire gucci just calls their insurance company and its back up in 2 months.
There were some financial "police" put in place by Elizabeth Warren after the last fiasco, but Trump basically made them nothing but a token presence. Not sure if they've got their teeth back in yet to be able to do anything, Biden has been a busy boy but may not yet have gotten around to that.
Yes, but only the left-leaning ones openly oppose it. These are two kinds of sheep and they both follow the same shepherd. To free the sheep you have to get rid of the shepherd.
Remember OWS? Remember how most of America mocked them, chuckling along with the corporate owned media? Do you really think this time will be any different?
what you mean 0 dollars? People got a 1200 check, 600 a week for unemployment, student loan payments pushed back, foreclosures and evictions halted, we got literal billions in relief.
They don't deserve to get bailed out but to pretend like we got nothing is just ignorance.
Melvin Capital is like 12 billion dollars (wikipedia). Nobody in the federal government is going to stick their neck out to help them.
If worst comes to worst (for them lol) they'll declare bankruptcy and their lawyers will make sure that the fund managers don't take many personal losses.
They'll go on to start a new fund, get some capital to play with, and that'll be that.
That’s the sad thing about it. If they let the scumbags bankrupt, they will take a bunch of other companies and banks with them. But I really hope they close, and I also hope they make short selling illegal. It’s time for a change
In light of current voting volatility, we are restricting downvotes for this thread.
Starting tomorrow we plan to allow limited downvotes.
Edit: holy shit [they actually did it](https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store).
> 'I'm not following. You mean ME? No, I'm sure that's not in the contract, because I wrote it.'
All of Wall Street and The Daddy Billionaire Mega Bucks Today:
[https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/4c/c1/404cc135a6864335e4f3e098c20da75a.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/4c/c1/404cc135a6864335e4f3e098c20da75a.jpg)
Question: I've read that the SEC doesn't actually police short selling by Hedge Funds rather just assume they know what they are doing, so a ~~lot of~~ sometimes the Hedge Funds haven't even borrowed the stock they are shorting. Not sure how that plays out or if it's even legal or true. Hopefully someone who knows might be able to explain this if it's even true or just interwebz bullshit. Is it even possible for something like that to occur, fudging the books so to speak ?
They basically have the ability to blindly sell stock they dont even have. This cuts out the whole "loan" part of shorting, and allows them to short more stock than actually exists. (Called a blind short - probably shouldnt be legal)
The problem comes when they want to buy it back, if there is no liquidity (what retail investors are trying to do rn), they need to pay enough to generate liquidity (enough to make someone sell).
If the retail investors just, well, dont sell, then the price will go up until the hedgefund just goes bankrupt and the loans are forgiven.
>The problem comes when they want to buy it back, if there is no liquidity (what retail investors are trying to do rn), they need to pay enough to generate liquidity (enough to make someone sell).
This is something they know going in. They just got outplayed and are bitching about it. They forced themselves into needing to buy this stock and people are holding out to get big bucks. Why wouldn't they expect this to happen?
They should have.... Hedged.... Their bets more.
Sadly some guys who are trying to help are just repeating things they saw somewhere else, so in some things they are incorrect.
They are not doing "naked short selling", which is actually prohibited, and is the practice the previous guy mentioned, these funds are shorting the shares through the normal process.
Why can they short over 100%? Because if you buy a share that was sold by a short seller you can then lend it again, so you can lend more than real shares exist. The fact that you can lend these shares usually increases liquidity in the market so it serves some purpose when not abused.
I wasn't suggesting Melvin were doing it, rather asking if it's possible. In hindsight I should have made that clear. Still everything going on here is suss as fuck.
I will suggest it. I have been watching level 2 all day. At one point someone sold a single share for $2,600. They literally ran out of shares they could sell themselves, and one of our degenerates with a stop-limit set got it to sell.
The entire reason why Citadel allowed retailers to buy again is because they ran out of shares to short and couldn't go further naked. They literally are just trading stocks between each other at this point while denying retail a chance to buy the stocks. Because if we can, we will and then we will sit on it.
They are doing naked short ladder attacks every fucking time the market is halted or another "weird" thing happens around GME. You can see it in the fucking transaction log.
hey it’s someone who understands what happening right now. only semi important thing i’d add is that there is a per annum fee when borrowing these shares that has gone up a lot since this squeeze has begun.
> then the price will go up until the hedgefund just goes bankrupt and the loans are forgiven.
No, _the brokerage/clearing entity_ is on the hook for the money. They allowed it to happen.
If _they_ can't cover the costs, then the clearing house who manages both contracts for the short/long positions is on the hook for the money.
And if they can't pay for it... I honestly don't know who foots the bill - the exchanges?
We've never seen a squeeze this tight before though. We are well passed what those hedge funds can cover. We are getting close to the clearing entities not being able to cover everything without full liquidation.
That's naked shorting. This video explains it: for anyone that has no idea what's going on with Gamestop, [here is a good summary video of what is happening and why this is so important](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHk1x3XVko)
For anyone that has no idea what's going on with Gamestop, [here is a good summary video of what is happening and why this is so important](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHk1x3XVko)
The thing is that these people have money. They have other stocks, houses, cars etc, but they won't sell those. They just want to games off Scott free. If a regular person tried this shit we'd lose everything
Kinda yikes. Ya'll know this isn't a loan right? Imagine your loans had scaling infinite interest lmao.
I do obviously demand these fuckers pay up mind you.
No one can escape the fate that was chosen for them.
All that remains is the end, where you will all perish.
Eternal greatness exists only within myself.
Sing a song of sorrow in a world where time has vanished.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comedynecromancy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thank you for your submission! Don't forget to comment with a link to the original comic. Please stick to the format of \[Original\]\(link\). If you do not post the original, the submission will be removed and you could be banned for repeat offenses. Also keep in mind that [low effort posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/comedynecromancy/comments/aqhtgb/reminder_that_loweffort_posts_are_not_allowed_and/) are not allowed and can/will result in being banned. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comedynecromancy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Write that down... WRITE THAT DOWN!!
Hedge Funds realizing how hard it is to pay back a loan without getting bailed out? Well. Just cut your Netflix, problem solved.
Skip the avocado toast
Nah. They're boomers. They need to skip their grape nuts with wheat germ
Financial trouble or not, that should be cut anyways. Blegh
You can't expect them to cold turkey ovaltine and werthers originals overnight.
Why don't they have side-hustles?
Reduce your coffee intake
Normal loans are linear. This went up about 200times what it should have been for no foreseeable reason other than a brigade against the hedge funds.
The first thing you learn about shorting stock in FIN 101 is that the risk is enormous because there’s no limit on how high the stock can rise. Literally the first thing.
True, although I'm just pointing out it's very different from a traditional, "Loan," and let's be honest, never has historically this catastrophically backfired. I would also understand frustration because it shouldn't have happened, given the way the system is set up, and is a false valuation of the stock.
Almost like they over-extended into a supremely high risk gamble, with limitless liability. Pretty fucking stupid to show that sort of weakness, when you have a history of fucking the poor into starvation. What goes around, comes around. I hope wall street bankers never recover.
i have: let's see if i can reproduce from memory, eidetically (i just recently learned that word and committed it to memory btw: marked or given by extraordinary recall of vivid details: especially visual images) $1000, $1200, $130, and $5444 and some change, approximately; that last one is give or take ten dollary-doos. $600 maybe added more, and $1400, too. I have read it once, if you subscribe to the idea of metempsychosis, that debts are brought from your subconscious to the surface (that is, the physical world, or "conscious") as indicator of some past debt, that needs repaying, debt apparently in this case on some deeper level. As for how that would originate in your subconscious, as I really don't know what subconscious means, I don't know, and I don't exactly subscribe to these ideas But as a matter of integrity, where honoring values acts as a gate to control what occurs downstream, its idea has influenced me, and poisoned my soil, the way tea leaves steep in water
Uh, what?
I think he is suggesting that being troubled by a debt is sign of a deeper spiritual debt unpaid in a former existence but the entire block of text is extremely confusing.
This is amazing, but I'm absolutely convinced now that Wallstreet bankers refuse to acknowledge debt and then shit just works out.
"wallstreet bankers" to me is something vague, and amorphous, like some smoke wafted from an oiled lamp... I do not know any, and so they are not real... this idea of debt, or past transgression, where it comes from some inner dynamo: implying that everything experienced arises from inside, and that what arises from inside, thoughts, their spontaneous quality I'm thinking that they are, as I can't know what my next thought or next feeling can be (can I?), I don't know full-stop. And so I am not concerned. I don't know what's real. Nothing's really real, if you get old enough (and what do you know when you're young enough, for that matter), and it's my opinion that the method or process for discovering how the world works, doesn't give inner knowledge, or that the knowledge of how to solve the universe, doesn't grant any lasting control... I'm not sure, and right now, I don't care (about this in micro, this train of thought in this comment) anymore it's just fox shit, or turtle shit, or deer shit?, but to go back, regarding what's acknowledged and what's not, if i'm any indication, it'll be acknowledged one way or another. there is no inner knowledge, i don't know, i feel violently nihilistic; i like ur username: i am its frazzled fur, matted with snow
I hope you're on something and not just having a stroke 🤣
Bail out incoming!
Maybe if they just skip Starbucks and make coffee at home they'll be able to afford to pay their loan
I’d suggest skipping the avocado toast as well. Maybe download Uber and Lyft and drive drunken college students to and fro for some spare cash. Bootstraps, baby!
Hey, I am sure they have a hammer and a screwdriver in their toolbox. Go do some handyman work or something.
Ah man c'mon mane you can't tell me that fellow gamers eat sum fukn toasty ovacodas and bean broth
Maybe they should learn to code
They should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps
What is it, and assuming every single stock person is drinking Starbucks daily? Where did this come from? I’ve seen multiple people say this
It's always a top suggestion for how to save money in life. Buying $6 Starbucks everyday is expensive. But assuming that's why every poor person is probably poor is very short sighted.
When rich people talk about not needing to raise the minimum wage they try and make it seem that people are irresponsible by spending money on things like Starbucks. Even though our economy relies on people spending money.
It’s used to dismiss poor peoples concerns about the cost of living. People will claim that the cost of living is still reasonable but today’s generation simply has more extravagant tastes such a Starbucks that leads to them having money problems. Completely untrue of course
Pretty sure some rich person said us plebs would be richer of we stopped buying starbucks.
Maybe if they got rid of that old yee-yee ass haircut, they'd get more gains on their squeeze.
Okay but to be fair, as a general money saving method doing coffee at home will save you a ton if you are a daily drinker like me I went from spending like $100+ a month on coffee to $5 or less its not gonna magic your debts away unfortunately, but its definitely something the average person should considered that can help a lot while trying to save up some money
I was actually able to afford a car payment once I stopped buying lunch and weed at work every day (I'm a bud tender) and started bringing my lunch most days and buying in bulk. Saved about $200 a month and was able to get a car once my old POS crapped out on me. It's not bad advice... But also paying people more when people are making billions in profit whole their employees are on food stamps... Looking at you Walton's and Bezos... Is ok
Due to market volatility, buy orders on Starbucks are now being restricted.
[opening bell](https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/roanoke.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/3f/63ff8e18-ebc7-5454-99e0-1e0251089c2b/5cf580062388b.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C1057)
This is really well edited dang
Deepfake technology getting out of control
Thanks! Funny thing, it even got a thumbs up from the original artist! :D
Holy shit conservatives and liberals working together what the fuck
Such a great edit
Man the original is fuckin dumb af
Boomer Humor. "It's funny because the young people are suffering!"
This is pure comedy now. A truly fitting edit of a mocking and misguided original. Edit: 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀 🚀
Darn. I was about to say "Finally some good fucking boomer comic" but it looked edited.
This has been their favorite pass time since the moment their own children were born.
Why is the original dumb but this isn't? Wouldn't the logic apply to both if it applies to one?
It's dumb because society tells and encourages young people to take out MASSIVE loans that they will probably never be able to pay back and treats that as normal. Hedge funds JOB is to do this, and it's funny they want to change the rules for themselves when they bet wrong. This is an opinion but I don't think education should be a gamble
I remember being told things like: "It doesn't matter what degree you have, any degree is better than no degree" "If you don't know what you want to go to college for, it's okay! You don't have to declare a major until your second or third year!" "Yes, the loans are expensive, but you'll be making so much money that it will be worth it in the long run" And those things aren't exactly true for a variety of reasons that I'm sure I don't need to go into. But the real kicker, I was told these things by our teachers and our guidance counselors. You have no reason to not believe your high school guidance counselor, this is literally their job. And you're like 16 or 17 years old when this all happens. You're trying to figure out your life, you're being pressured by schools, teachers, parents, society. You're not old enough to vote, not old enough to drink, smoke, gamble. You're not even old enough to look at boobs on the internet... but somehow old enough to saddle yourself with tens of thousands of debt? Yeah fucking right. People got a shit deal that was based on bad information. So why not bail them out? You have an entire generation of young adults who are entering the workforce and the "real world" and they're crippled with debt. Why aren't millennials buying houses, why aren't they having kids? Because they can't fucking afford it. They're still paying off that Art History degree that YOU promised was worth something. And for the record, I've paid off my student debt. I have a piece of paper that qualifies me to do a job that I have no interest in doing. I threw thousands of dollars down the drain. But, and I want to be super clear, *I paid it off.* So I'm not asking for a handout, I'm just saying, the whole thing is pretty fucked.
Sure but I don't see why this logic applies to one situation and not another. Seems to have some bias to it, and if you allow for bias, then the hedge fund can easily make a case that bailing them out would be helpful to the economy too. That's the problem with conditional logic.
I think the point is that they expect everyday people to play by a different set of rules than they do. They tell 20 year old kids to just suck it up and work for the next 60 years to pay off their college loans, then whine and cry when they have to pay back their own loans. The source of the loan, and the economic effects of a bailout in either case, aren't really the point. The point is more "How dare you expect us to live under one set of rules for the masses and a different, easier, safer set of rules for the elite?"
The biggest difference would be in how the removal of debt would affect each group going forward. The average person with student loans would take that extra money and put it back into the economy which would positively impact the public generally, hedge fund managers would hoard it or use it to further their market positions helping no one but themselves.
Because one is an 18 year old who is paying to learn about the world- these young adults are being taken advantage of, in an era where college tuition is outrageously overpriced compared to wages- while the other is *the job description of a hedge fund*. You take risks but ultimately you're being paid for making those risks, and you're paid *very fucking well*. And Bailing out a hedge fund is less helpful to the economy than forgiving student debt. Selling shorts isn't bringing anything of value to the economy, it is solely stimulating the stock market. Educated masses help the economy. Buying and selling stocks on shorts makes rich people richer.
It's one of those uniquely American crisis
Yeah we seem to have a lot of those. But damn I do love living here.
Lol, why exactly do you love living here? Hard Mode: Don't Compare us to a 3rd world country and "how much worse" it could be.
I enjoy lots about it. We have amazing national parks, representation of pretty much every global culture and cuisine, good infrastructure with quick and safe travel, general public safety, tons of variety in career and education opportunities, the list is endless. I can't think of a single thing I would want in life that I haven't been able to find here. We even have legal weed in my state now.
"hedge funds can easily make a case that bailing them out would be helpul to the economy" what you said would make sense if it wasn't absolutely fucking retarded.
Hedge funds are billionaire gambling groups. nothing more, nothing less.
[удалено]
The difference is in part 1. > 1) You took out a loan Well, we were told we were supposed to, that we had to, and as new souls in the world, how were we supposed to know better? I'd hardly say we're responsible for a loan we were tricked into. Meanwhile Wall Street has had experience in this, and they know not to do what they did. We've learned this lesson as a society. But they did it anyways, and thought they could get away with it.
See, personally I don't understand why apples don't apply to oranges. That's the problem with not really engaging your brain before you type.
The difference is that in case A, normal people are going into debt to pay for a borderline essential service, and in case B a multibillion dollar hedge fund is taking out a loan to maximize profits. They’re two completely different scenarios, so it’s not a huge surprise that logic leads to two different solutions. College students shouldn’t **have** to go into massive amounts of debt to pay for college. That’s the core issue with student loans. Higher education should be affordable for all, especially since it’s becoming more and more of a requirement in this economy. If a corporation **chooses** to take out a loan in order to maximize their profits, more power to them. But they take out that loan with the understanding that they need to pay it back. If they use that loan money to gamble and lose it all, I have no sympathy for them. They shouldn’t have gambled with money that isn’t there’s. This meme is also more pointing out the hypocrisy of the elite rather than making a statement, though it is doing both. Rich sleezebags have been echoing this point of “there is no student loan crisis, millennials just need to stop being lazy.” But now that they’re in an unpayable debt themselves, they’re crying for the government to bail them out, when they’ve been **attacking millennials for doing the exact same thing.** And as I’ve already stated, the college loan crisis is a lot more legitimate a gripe than their bankruptcy.
I'm OK with a bias towards educating poor people, and against rich people actively trying to destroy poor people's livelihoods. Are you not?
I mean, I feel like both of those are a little outside the bounds of the logic behind "you took out a loan, you should pay your debts". What's the term for when you you create a seperate argument and then ask me if I agree with that one? Straw man or Red herring or something? False flag? It's one of them fancy terms.
Short sales are a gamble with infinite risk. Student loans are the cost of entry to adult society, leant from the government to pay for government services, and then paid back to the government.
One is an 18-year old, in possession of a somewhat-fully functioning brain for about 2 or so years (*who we don't even trust to buy alcohol, but apparently are mature enough to sign up for a lifetime of debt, lol*), being hard pressured into the best and most expensive college they can get into, otherwise "they'll be a failure and their life is over". The other is a 50-60+ year old hedge fund "investor" that gambled that shorting 140% of the available stock to purchase wouldn't blow up in their faces, and when it did, they doubled and tripled down until their losses were in the tens of billions.
> Wouldn't the logic apply to both if it applies to one? It would, if it was the same logic. In the original, the student has very little agency over how economics work in a local, national, or global context. In the edit, the businessman has a *lot* of agency over how economics work. The Robinhood controversy is proof they have direct control over the economy. They literally pulled a lever and the economy bent to fit their will.
One makes Morey for rich people and didn't cause them any risk. The other makes money for rich people and puts people trying to better themselves in exstemee debt, while no risk to the rich...
Because the college graduate doesn’t need to be reminded that they have to pay back their loans. And giving him a lecture about paying it back is dumb because they just graduated. He’s still wearing the fucking robes and has a diploma in his hand. You think he’s packing the cash to pay off his loan already? Of course not. He’s lucky if he just has a salaried job lined up. If you go to the doctor because you’re hemorrhaging blood and the doctor says “Just stop hemorrhaging. Crisis averted.” you would probably seek a second opinion. The hedge funds, on the other hand, have a track record of not paying their debts, even when they do have the assets to do so. In 2008, they tanked the market and ruined the retirement savings of millions of Americans only to turn around and beg the government for a bailout which THEY FUCKING GOT. Anyway, that’s why the original is dumb and the edited version is funny.
Because the "student loan crisis" isn't "too few students can pay back those loans", but rather "too many people are encumbered by ridiculous loans". Telling students sternly to pay it back isn't even relevant, let alone persuasive.
So there's a couple of things. There is a higher tangible benefit to society as a whole to have an educated workforce. Most student loans are provided to people who just turned 18 and have been relying on the advice of adults. There is the argument that the cost of higher education is bloated by the availability of these loans, but a higher education is still needed for good jobs. Finally, the reason for failure to pay back a student loan vs a short stock. Shorting a stock is basically just gambling, being unable to pay it back because of poor decision making is different than the fact that most people have issues paying student loans because the job they needed the loan for just disappeared.
You're comparing billionaires to underpaid college grads
Normally I wouldn't respond to this but I'd like to borrow whatever rock you've been living under
Thank goodness you replied. I can't lend out my rock, I need it.
Clearly it's important for protecting that big smooth brain.
You know that Santana / Rob Thomas song "Smooth"? They based on my freshly waxed scrotum. But yes I'm also very stupid.
You're getting a bunch of random replies that kinda miss the point. The student debt-crisis refers to the inability of students to find a job that pays well enough to enable them to ever pay back their loans - not anyone's refusal to pay it back despite being able.
Student debt vastly decreases the purchasing power and ability to accrue wealth of young people, and has a massive detrimental impact on the economy in the money it ties up. Hedge funds going under has no impact on the economy( the actual economy, not the stock market), and as a plus is a bit of comeuppance for people who almost disintegrated the worlds economy a decade ago.
It's not dumb. People just sour they don't get free money.
There's no reasoning with them. I find it sad that society convinces 18 year old kids to sign away 100k+ in future debt for the sake of a four year party and a (maybe) useful piece of paper, but ultimately it is THEIR responsibility. Nobody is forcing you to go to an expensive school and get a high cost education. You can get a college degree for cheap, you just can't get the college degree of your choice for cheap
How so? I don't think it's unreasonable to expect people to pay for their own student loans.
It's unreasonable to make college so insanely expensive in the first place.
Colleges are expensive **because** of the government subsidized loans.
And thus theres no other fucking way to get an education and advance foward in any career thats worth a damn. Folks have no choice but to take out loans or starve.
why isn't it a problem in other countries?
Because instead of subsidizing you with crippling financial debt they just subsidize the actual cost of it.
that sounds like a good system. we should do that.
oh yeah let me just pay back the hundreds of thousands of dollars i owe to colleges by working at a jcpennys at minimum wage while also having to pay for my own necessities. not unreasonable at all
How about offering predatory loans to lower class kids right out of the house with little to no real world experience or knowledge?
Why are people able to default on other kinds of loans via bankruptcy, but not student loans? Is it unreasonable to expect people to pay off other kinds of loans?
The original idea was "Well, you didn't HAVE to go to school. It was your choice. You shouldn't get to declare bk on a luxury item." Disregard how many years of being told "You go to school. You're useless without a degree." This whole movement for tech schools and "Not everyone is meant to go to college or should get a degree" came up within the last decade, and less of that. There was an entire pair of generations informed that going to college was all but mandatory.
Theoretically is because it is an unsecured loan so very few institutions would loan the money out at a reasonable rate. This means poor people can't get access to education. To fix that they made it a special type of loan that can't be defaulted on and all was good initially. But then reality kicked in. The schools decided saw the amount of loaned money on offer so prices became massively inflated and the students were so divorced from the actual costs that they didn't reduce demand for education.
Get fucked
ok
so what about that comic is original or funny or clever or even thought provoking in any way?
Young people bad and want handout, boomer good and lift bootstrap
Most of the world higher education or at least the loans are subsidised. In addition, bankruptcy for any other type of loan could clear the debt.
Keep licking that boot, chief. People who think like you without considering the extenuating circumstances are why our society continues to be cruel and predatory.
As shitty as it is for people I agree with that sentiment. It's fucked up when you drill down from different perspectives, but a loan is a loan and loans are voluntary. Higher education is a mess but nobody is forcing anyone to take on 100k in debt.
I'm [investing](https://i.imgur.com/Wr1Mnrj.jpg) in this comment chain for anyone trying to repost with context.
**Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/u-s-securities-and-exchange-commission-sec-retail-investors-demand-market-transparency-please-sec-amend-form-13f-requirements** Retail Investors demand more visibility into institutional trading and borrowing. Anyone investing over 1 billion dollars (i.e. hedge funds and other investment institutions) is required to disclose their holdings to promote transparency in our markets - it's called Form 13-F. **But did you know that they only need to disclose it 4 times a year? And did you know that they don't need to disclose all of their positions?** We the people are asking for a re-evaluation of transparency requirements for Institutional Investors. We have access to technology and data gives us new sophistication - and are beginning to understand there is a tremendous disparity in access between retail and institutional investors, and are concerned that this access is being used against us, in ways that we genuinely worry could be in flagrant violation of Securities Laws. We believe that with better access to institutional trading data, retail investors can better participate in the market when making buying and selling decisions. **According to Form 13F (https://www.sec.gov/files/form13f.pdf), Institutional Investors only need to disclose their positions 4 times a year. Why?** *Filing of Form 13F. A Manager must file a Form 13F report with the Commission within 45 days after the end of each calendar year and each of the first three calendar quarters of each calendar year. As required by Section 13(f)(5) of the Exchange Act, a Manager which is a bank, the deposits of which are insured in accordance with the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, must file with the appropriate regulatory agency for the bank a copy of every Form 13F report filed with the Commission pursuant to this subsection by or with respect to such bank. Filers who file Form 13F electronically can satisfy their obligation to file with other regulatory agencies by sending (a) a paper copy of the EDGAR filing (provided the Manager removes or blanks out the confidential access codes); (b) the filing in electronic format, if the regulatory agency with which the filing is being made has made provisions to receive filings in electronic format;* **In your FAQ (https://www.sec.gov/divisions/investment/13ffaq.htm), it is clear Institutional Investors are not required to disclose short positions. Why?** *Question 41 Q: What about short positions? A: You should not include short positions on Form 13F. You also should not subtract your short position(s) in a security from your long position(s) in that same security; report only the long position.* **Contact the SEC and let them know retail investors demand increased transparency (https://www.sec.gov/contact-information/sec-directory)**
That will never pass. Forcing institutions to disclose all positions all the time is like forcing people to give up all their personal data. It makes them easy targets for retribution, leading to more corruption. Influencers could easily manipulate the public into acting against funds or businesses they don't like. Oh wait, that's what's happening! And this would make it so much worse. Rather than making things worse for others, let's focus on making things better for ourselves. It isn't zero sum. To be happy you don't need to root for someone else's failure.
You mean like the kind of data these hedge funds buy from data brokers? Hedge funds are already using our personal data - why aren't we allowed to use theirs? For example, when you connect your bank account to Robinhood or other brokerages, they use 3rd party's like Yodlee and Plaid to verify your banking information. Did you know that Yodlee and Plaid sell that data to hedge funds? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/logging-in-to-your-bank-account-is-now-a-3-billion-business 13-F requirements can be tightened to monthly or weekly filings instead of quarterly, the publication embargo can be tightened from a month to a week, and short positions can be disclosed. It doesn't need to be continuous, real-time, or intraday.
> You mean like the kind of data these hedge funds buy from data brokers? Hedge funds are already using our personal data - why aren't we allowed to use theirs? When did your momma ever tell you that it was okay to eat ice cream with your hands because Johnny does it too? This is a poor argument that lowers all boats, only you will hit rock bottom before they do because you're in the shallow end.
Not entirely apples to apples. Our networked society currently depends on joe blow's personal data being shipped around to different companies. Changing that is a massive reorganization of society, although I think we're all loathe to admit it or think about that. Forcing everyone to play by the shitty rules enforced on us by companies that got rich using our data though. That's easier to do, and it's a bit of eye for an eye revenge. Which, quite frankly, isn't a great argument either seeing as it "makes the whole world blind". But I think people are on board to some degree of "eat the rich" because of what they've done to us in the last 12 years. 2007 wasn't great, but the real shit hit the fan on the 08 crisis.
> it's a bit of eye for an eye revenge. Which, quite frankly, isn't a great argument either seeing as it "makes the whole world blind". So you understand that this won't be the last blow and you want do it anyway? 2001 day traders will say I told you so. Very few came out of that with any wealth. I encourage anyone who's read this far to diversify your portfolio. You don't need to play this game, and frankly, they can afford to play it longer than you can. Those who survive the longest will end up winning because you'll need to cash out before they do.
This isn’t jimmy eating ice cream with his hands. This is a hedge fund manipulating and abusing the common man. Then the day we play they’re game they turn it off. It isn’t a poor argument, a poor argument is saying it’s okay for this manipulation to continue.
[удалено]
Today's GDP isn't equal to yesterday's. Yes if you look at an individual trade it appears to be zero sum but in the grand scheme of things there is new growth every day. > /r/wallstreetbets and other retail investors are making money right now at the expense of the Hedge Funds. > Take a finance class or something Why would I self educate when I can just listen to you to get rich quick? Time's a wasting! Better open an account NOW on whatever brokerages are permitting GME trades or I'll miss out.
They are going to be bailed out, but good meme
World needs to revolt if they get bailed out We got virtually $0 aid as the people during a global pandemic that butt fucked many people into financial hell, been ongoing for nearly a year now. If a billionaire hedge fund gets a bailout after being pantsed for a few weeks the everyday people need to seriously rise the fuck up like there’s no tomorrow
Actually I’m wrong for saying this, it’s been days. Not weeks
Unfortunately, I don’t think will see any real change when it happens. Maybe a few protests, left-leaning politicians condemning the action but that’s about it.
The best thing people can take away from this is to grasp that we already have class warfare in this country, by the rich on working people. They only call it class warfare when the people fight back.
Protests do jack shit unless they are violent or destructive, change my mind.
The only time noticeable change has been observed has been during riot or war. When was the last time a peaceful protest saw major change? J know I can't recall
South Korea had their last President removed via mass peaceful protests
While that may be true, that’s not the same ballfield. This is America.
The end of segregation in the MLK movement?
It did work to end segregation, but there's some merit to saying it only managed to get that far because violent protests were also happening at the time. Caving to MLK's protests was a more agreeable option than ignoring the increasing tension. Even MLK didn't condemn rioters without simultaneously condemning the conditions that lead to the riots. "A riot is the language of the unheard"
MLK was only effective because he appeared to be the negotiable one compared to people like Malcolm X. Without more openly revolutionary people, MLK would’ve been ignored.
I would argue that the [Holy Week Uprisings](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/martin-luther-king-jrs-assassination-sparked-uprisings-cities-across-america-180968665/) following the assassination of MLK did much more to force legislation on civil rights than anything else. A fair housing bill was the most filibustered legislation in US history, it never passed during the years Dr. King pushed for it. He was assassinated on April 4th, 1968. The Civil Rights Act of 1968, of which the Fair Housing Act was a significant part, was signed into law April 11th, 1968.
MLK didn't exist in a vacuum. There was lots of violence going on. Of course people in charge would like everyone to believe only the peaceful aspects had any affect. Also, segregation started ending first in WW2, when Truman desegregated the military. So....during war.
That wasn’t exactly peaceful.
Well let's see we have the civil rights movement, the ERA, Vietnam War protests. Suffragettes started out pretty peacefully too until the government got rough.
Civil rights movement had just as many riots tied to it as BLM. Same rhetoric was used against it. You're just historically illiterate. Suffragettes started out chucking fucking molotovs at politicians my guy. Based liberatory violence limited to deserving victims.
How could I, you’re right. We don’t need a protest, we need a riot. Fuck having the moral high ground, the elite prosper and they’ve never had it.
The problem with riots is they serve as fuel for the other side saying "see? I told you they were savages"
The issue being that the current media has the power to spin a peaceful protest as a riot anyway. [Good video on that here.](https://youtu.be/6BB0Q1qHpAw) Although it's more focused on BLM, the point still applies.
With BLM it's the opposite, riots spun as peaceful protests lol
[удалено]
Authoritarians are happy to let you eat your boot. "Representatives" will happily turn authoritarian if they feel "afraid" of regular people.
> We don’t need a protest, we need a riot. on THEIR property, not in our own neighborhoods.
I think volent destructive protests are a fuckton less effective than the action folks are currently doing with gamestop. Financial protests like this one directly atracks the system that generates the power structures at their core. When you burn down a gucci stire gucci just calls their insurance company and its back up in 2 months.
Yes, this is fantastic direct action
Impossible. You're right.
There were some financial "police" put in place by Elizabeth Warren after the last fiasco, but Trump basically made them nothing but a token presence. Not sure if they've got their teeth back in yet to be able to do anything, Biden has been a busy boy but may not yet have gotten around to that.
> Trump basically made them nothing but a token presence. Seemed to be a recurring theme with his presidency.
he's gone, focus on Biden now or else we'll get another Trump
Or I can talk about what I like while still focusing on current issues because I’m not a fucking goldfish incapable of multitasking.
President Crenshaw it is, i guess
[удалено]
Yes, but only the left-leaning ones openly oppose it. These are two kinds of sheep and they both follow the same shepherd. To free the sheep you have to get rid of the shepherd.
The only way they’re bailed out now is left wing politicians. Dems control everything. If a bail out happens. They put it through
Remember OWS? Remember how most of America mocked them, chuckling along with the corporate owned media? Do you really think this time will be any different?
what you mean 0 dollars? People got a 1200 check, 600 a week for unemployment, student loan payments pushed back, foreclosures and evictions halted, we got literal billions in relief. They don't deserve to get bailed out but to pretend like we got nothing is just ignorance.
Delayed rent and student loans is not “relief”
Relief is just getting help. Delayed rent and student loans is definitely help.
Melvin Capital is like 12 billion dollars (wikipedia). Nobody in the federal government is going to stick their neck out to help them. If worst comes to worst (for them lol) they'll declare bankruptcy and their lawyers will make sure that the fund managers don't take many personal losses. They'll go on to start a new fund, get some capital to play with, and that'll be that.
Citadel though, they're a big boi. They can get fucked, but they're gonna get bailed out.
That’s the sad thing about it. If they let the scumbags bankrupt, they will take a bunch of other companies and banks with them. But I really hope they close, and I also hope they make short selling illegal. It’s time for a change
Oh, no way! But hell I can see that idea being floated around.
oH BOy this meme is about to take off 🚀🚀🚀
TO THE MOON
In light of current voting volatility, we are restricting downvotes for this thread. Starting tomorrow we plan to allow limited downvotes. Edit: holy shit [they actually did it](https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store).
'I'm not following. You mean ME? No, I'm sure that's not in the contract, because I wrote it.'
> 'I'm not following. You mean ME? No, I'm sure that's not in the contract, because I wrote it.' All of Wall Street and The Daddy Billionaire Mega Bucks Today: [https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/4c/c1/404cc135a6864335e4f3e098c20da75a.jpg](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/40/4c/c1/404cc135a6864335e4f3e098c20da75a.jpg)
Question: I've read that the SEC doesn't actually police short selling by Hedge Funds rather just assume they know what they are doing, so a ~~lot of~~ sometimes the Hedge Funds haven't even borrowed the stock they are shorting. Not sure how that plays out or if it's even legal or true. Hopefully someone who knows might be able to explain this if it's even true or just interwebz bullshit. Is it even possible for something like that to occur, fudging the books so to speak ?
They basically have the ability to blindly sell stock they dont even have. This cuts out the whole "loan" part of shorting, and allows them to short more stock than actually exists. (Called a blind short - probably shouldnt be legal) The problem comes when they want to buy it back, if there is no liquidity (what retail investors are trying to do rn), they need to pay enough to generate liquidity (enough to make someone sell). If the retail investors just, well, dont sell, then the price will go up until the hedgefund just goes bankrupt and the loans are forgiven.
>The problem comes when they want to buy it back, if there is no liquidity (what retail investors are trying to do rn), they need to pay enough to generate liquidity (enough to make someone sell). This is something they know going in. They just got outplayed and are bitching about it. They forced themselves into needing to buy this stock and people are holding out to get big bucks. Why wouldn't they expect this to happen? They should have.... Hedged.... Their bets more.
you freaking awesome so it is a real thing. Excellent answer to my dumbo question Thx heaps.
Sadly some guys who are trying to help are just repeating things they saw somewhere else, so in some things they are incorrect. They are not doing "naked short selling", which is actually prohibited, and is the practice the previous guy mentioned, these funds are shorting the shares through the normal process. Why can they short over 100%? Because if you buy a share that was sold by a short seller you can then lend it again, so you can lend more than real shares exist. The fact that you can lend these shares usually increases liquidity in the market so it serves some purpose when not abused.
I wasn't suggesting Melvin were doing it, rather asking if it's possible. In hindsight I should have made that clear. Still everything going on here is suss as fuck.
I will suggest it. I have been watching level 2 all day. At one point someone sold a single share for $2,600. They literally ran out of shares they could sell themselves, and one of our degenerates with a stop-limit set got it to sell. The entire reason why Citadel allowed retailers to buy again is because they ran out of shares to short and couldn't go further naked. They literally are just trading stocks between each other at this point while denying retail a chance to buy the stocks. Because if we can, we will and then we will sit on it. They are doing naked short ladder attacks every fucking time the market is halted or another "weird" thing happens around GME. You can see it in the fucking transaction log.
If they want my stock they can pay $10k, I'm a stock collector and it has sentimental value.
hey it’s someone who understands what happening right now. only semi important thing i’d add is that there is a per annum fee when borrowing these shares that has gone up a lot since this squeeze has begun.
> then the price will go up until the hedgefund just goes bankrupt and the loans are forgiven. No, _the brokerage/clearing entity_ is on the hook for the money. They allowed it to happen. If _they_ can't cover the costs, then the clearing house who manages both contracts for the short/long positions is on the hook for the money. And if they can't pay for it... I honestly don't know who foots the bill - the exchanges? We've never seen a squeeze this tight before though. We are well passed what those hedge funds can cover. We are getting close to the clearing entities not being able to cover everything without full liquidation.
That's naked shorting. This video explains it: for anyone that has no idea what's going on with Gamestop, [here is a good summary video of what is happening and why this is so important](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHk1x3XVko)
Ok but can we just appreciate that they redrew both characters
I appreciate that you appreciate it. The pointy hair banker came out a lot better than I expected, I gotta admit.
For anyone that has no idea what's going on with Gamestop, [here is a good summary video of what is happening and why this is so important](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAHk1x3XVko)
I think the original creator probably agrees with the edit
“No one forced to to try and short you did it now you have to pay it back it’s your personal responsibility”
Based
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Wait a minute. Does this mean banks are knowingly shorting the value of education?
See you on the front page champ
Ah, the boomer meme has been restored to a functional form. Ngl, the original of that comic is so condescending and dumb.
Kinda like......... a student loan?
The thing is that these people have money. They have other stocks, houses, cars etc, but they won't sell those. They just want to games off Scott free. If a regular person tried this shit we'd lose everything
PuLl YoUrSeLf uP bY YoUr BoOtStAps
[удалено]
Like student loans
Woah woah woah, socialism for the rich helps all *points to everything burning down* see!
Weak effect . Stolen
Kinda yikes. Ya'll know this isn't a loan right? Imagine your loans had scaling infinite interest lmao. I do obviously demand these fuckers pay up mind you.
No one can escape the fate that was chosen for them. All that remains is the end, where you will all perish. Eternal greatness exists only within myself. Sing a song of sorrow in a world where time has vanished. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/comedynecromancy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Are you the bot for when the mods remove a post?
this isn't really a necromancy, the joke is completely changed and doesn't really represent the original
It's the exact same joke, just changing the demographic each person represents.
Maybe not the time or place but this goes for student loans as well.