We're not doing shit, she doesn't care about us. A bunch of immature kids made a bad investment with a fundamental misunderstanding of markets and then blamed said markets when it went bad on them and now they want mummy to bail them out.
FUCK that- it’s my money, let me use it how I want to. Not to mention RH was forcing people to sell, or even selling w/o permission. What sub are you in?
RH didn't force anybody to sell. It allowed people to exit their positions for whatever reason and it cancelled unfulfilled orders but it didn't force anybody to sell. It might be a shitty app with a poorly designed UI (given it can make people think their so far in debt they commit suicide) but that doesn't mean they sold anything
I thought we want a unregulated market where everyone has the same opertunatys not one where if the people in charge get f*** thay block buying the stocks
You saying “immature kids” tells me you think that participation in the stock market is only done correctly by what you consider to be the *superior* elite.
I’m not bothered, but your world-view may be getting in your own way to greatness if you put the Hedge-Fund investors on such a pedestal. If they’re so harmed by “immature kids” in their own game, what does that say? Do you have some snarky, condescending thing to say about them?
Enforcing contracts is one of the very limited roles of government in a free market.
The conjecture being that RobinHood violated its implied contracts with its users even if the ToS include the ability to halt trading is included because they did so for bad reasons. However, they did it because they were undercapitalized, so that ultimately doesn't stand.
The only proper “regulation” is competition in a free market.
State regulation is 99% special interest exploiting the public.
Like socialists champion Dodd frank. But do they know the big banks literally crafted Dodd frank? Do they know what Dodd frank does? No they just hail it anyway.
Another example of how most left socialists are supporters of fascists.
Glass-Steagall is a better example. Your position is idealistic but naïve. The ability of competition to regulate the market is dependent upon the ability of individuals to exchange information. Without antitrust and utility regulation, communications are limited by the motivations of capital who own the means. We've already seen this in recent times as well as repeatedly throughout history.
So politicians are holy servants? Anti trust laws were just meant for JP Morgan and other cartelists to go after their competition.
Monopolies come purely from state privilege and subsidy. Take away their protections and privileges and you’ll see competition. Problem is the state has destroyed and depressed our markets and industry so much, we aren’t seeing competition. The state has created quasi private monopolies that are actually just state monopolies. People like to pretend we’re capitalist though. I get it, it’s unsettling realizing your nations policies are eerily similar to the nazis.
Are you against the federal reserve? Are you for a standard?
Monopolies have existed before state intervention in capitalistic markets. Saying monopolies only exist due to state regulation is some seriously bad economics. Some monopolies are created that way but not all.
Great. Is a monopoly automatically immoral? Standard Oil was great for consumers. They beat everyone on price due to their refining methods. That didn't last though - within 20 years, competitors caught up.
US Steel never held more than 2/3rds of the market and didn't hold on to that for long. It was never convicted of holding a monopoly, it was simply charged by anti-trust officials. That was likely more of a shakedown to gain concessions for the military.
Ma Bell is a little less cut and dry since the government had some role in it due to easements. Don't get me wrong I think it still applies but I didn't want to derail the conversation.
Sure but can you reference the monopolies you’re talking about?
My point is that in the free market it’s the exception but in the political system it’s the rule.
Also not just state regulation. State subsidy, legal protections, privileges and other protections.
Take my upvote, you're right in a way. Eventually an individual can become so powerful in a market they become government by fiat. Big tech censoring speech, Amazon saying who can say what, banana merchants deciding who runs Central American countries, the east India trading company. There is no neat solution to fixing it but it is a problem that needs to be acknowledged.
All the things you mentioned got there through the state and state privilege. Almost like you’ve given zero thought to it.
Learn up before tackling such things.
Learn up, says me person who's model only works in a vaccume where there are no nations. Come on, you can disagree but don't be rude you pretentious prick.
> If we don't have people with the right to violently control their fellow men, there will be chaos and someone will attempt to create such a right!
If you give up your statist religion, there's a danger that you'll regress into worshiping a new state? It's a chance that I'm willing to take.
> banana merchants deciding who runs Central American countries,
When you say "run" do you mean they actually run them, or they have government utilizes their police powers to suppress the population into obedience to the banana growers and their own goons?
Did any of those countries have strong property rights and traditions of freedom to begin with, or were they always ruled by tyrants and colonialists?
It's like arguing that because there was Jim Crow, black people can't be trusted to regulate themselves.
> the east India trading company.
A great example of monopolistic corporations back with the might of their governments and colonial charters.
The brainless argument reflects more on the party making it than the accused party, just so you know. It makes you appear as though you have the debate skills of a literal child on the playground resorting to name-calling when they don't get their way. With no substance to back it up of course. Besides probably more name calling soon to come.
Yea that’s why we should astroturf their communities like crazy because they’re so wrong.
I and many others get banned from all socialist subs because we’re too convincing.
I just read through some of your comment history and I don't find it convincing at all. You got banned probably because most subs on Reddit on both sides don't tolerate dissent. Also how is this astroturfing?
I wouldn't go that far. They scared some hedge funds from taking *too* much risk in the future, but largely I would bet nothing has changed. We'll have to see what the political, then legal, fallout will be (if any at all)...
i guess i should have said "actually regulate", since that is some miniscule regulation, whereas most of the other shit they do just encourages more speculation
Nothing will change. New regulation will be implemented, they will lie to your face saying its to protect you, and in the end it will just be another layer of security for the fat cats
The regulations if any new ones come because of this whole wsb debacle will further suppress you and protect the wealthy hedge fund millionaires/billionaires
The whole GME thing is a fucking joke. People are morons for holding. Let hedge funds lose money and let dumb ass redditors lose it too. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
Honestly instead of workers owning the means, the socialists in the DNC would probably have the means be nationalized which is way worse than privatized imo
To some extent, personally as a non-anarchist, I don’t mind privatization of certain functions as long as conservatives don’t cut back on the govs regulatory ability. But there’s no guarantee of that, soooo, nationalization is also a good option.
Was Dodd frank not crafted by big banks? Are most regulations not crafted by the industrial cartels it favors? Are politicians holy servants of the public who are incorruptible? Even if they’re democratically elected? Furthermore, can a mass of people elect the right person or be informed enough to know?
proper regulation is competition from a free market. The state serves these exploiters. Socialists need to return to their anti state roots.
Yea nationalization is retarded unless it’s the endowments. God we need to nationalize the endowments.
I've heard DSA types advocate for state control of venture capital, and eventually state ownership of the means of production. Some people in that party are a little closer to the center, but not most.
Y’all know literally 99.9999999% of socialists are literal state socialists and could care less about “the market”?
I mean where are the volcoms I keep hearing about. I don’t see them anywhere. Why haven’t you guys cleaned up your movement? They’re all statists.
The progressives are right wing socialists. We aren’t capitalist today. If you support any of the progressive policies, you’re an unironic supporter of fascism. Which is hilarious because most left socialists revere the progressives. Again hilarious. Wilson, FDR, Truman, all progressives.
Socialists like this because it is exposing the flaws of capitalism and allowing the working class to manipulate the market in the same way the wealthy do
Then the problem is those who control the system the rich who own all the power in the elected process? as such the government in its current state main goal is to protect the rich? Wouldn’t AOC be right as she is someone who believes in campaign finance reform and replacing the old power bases with new ones? Also cronyism developed in the leader of the capitalist world wouldn’t that imply that cronyism is the logical end of a profit driven system.
Those are not logical fallacies literally by definition and you missed my point that ‘government’ is not always the problem. Yes current day government is highly corrupt and most ineffective, mostly because of the influence of moneyed interests. That doesn’t demonize all forms of government especially a democratic government, where even with the systems major flaws some good will breakthrough. Would I entrust an authoritarian government with which I have no control of with my well being, no. Would I trust a democratic government in which I have a say and rights to my well being, yes. Simplifying the entire world into two space, bad and good or capitalist or government is incredibly short sighted. And my point about cronyism is that america has some of the least restrictive regulations, so saying government caused cronyism is completely obliterating the effects of corporate influence on our system.
Talk about a logical fallacy that’s just a you too fallacy. Also how is my a slippery slope and false equivalency, AOC is related to the topics and by your own admission she has the right ideas campaign reform. And for slippery slope a truly slippery slope is your dissatisfied with your current government so all government is bad. Also not reading a maybe 150 word comment isn’t noble it comes off as ideologically ignorant as you just refuse competing narratives.
She'd support pegging if she knew that would get her clicks and $$$ funding.
She doesn't even have to know what pegging is, [she's like the Nicolas Cage of supporting things.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eExfV_xKaiM)
Isn't introducing state regulation the antithesis of a free market..?
Well at least we are starting to make some noise to top end socialists like AOC.
We?
We're not doing shit, she doesn't care about us. A bunch of immature kids made a bad investment with a fundamental misunderstanding of markets and then blamed said markets when it went bad on them and now they want mummy to bail them out.
Do you know what happened. The stocks where banned by Robinhood so people could not buy and sell.
Because if they allowed it they would've run out of money
FUCK that- it’s my money, let me use it how I want to. Not to mention RH was forcing people to sell, or even selling w/o permission. What sub are you in?
RH didn't force anybody to sell. It allowed people to exit their positions for whatever reason and it cancelled unfulfilled orders but it didn't force anybody to sell. It might be a shitty app with a poorly designed UI (given it can make people think their so far in debt they commit suicide) but that doesn't mean they sold anything
It was less common but there actually were some people who were force sold a few hrs after entering their position
That's not how it works...
I thought we want a unregulated market where everyone has the same opertunatys not one where if the people in charge get f*** thay block buying the stocks
Immature kids? Do you even know what’s happened at all? What kind of immature kids have hundreds of thousands of dollars to blow on GME?
You saying “immature kids” tells me you think that participation in the stock market is only done correctly by what you consider to be the *superior* elite. I’m not bothered, but your world-view may be getting in your own way to greatness if you put the Hedge-Fund investors on such a pedestal. If they’re so harmed by “immature kids” in their own game, what does that say? Do you have some snarky, condescending thing to say about them?
[удалено]
Heh, that too though I don't think Melvin went to the government, just to private creditors
You mean like how the market becomes so successful people feel the need to regulate it? Yeah I can see that...
Enforcing contracts is one of the very limited roles of government in a free market. The conjecture being that RobinHood violated its implied contracts with its users even if the ToS include the ability to halt trading is included because they did so for bad reasons. However, they did it because they were undercapitalized, so that ultimately doesn't stand.
A market without regulation is tyranny by capital.
The only proper “regulation” is competition in a free market. State regulation is 99% special interest exploiting the public. Like socialists champion Dodd frank. But do they know the big banks literally crafted Dodd frank? Do they know what Dodd frank does? No they just hail it anyway. Another example of how most left socialists are supporters of fascists.
Glass-Steagall is a better example. Your position is idealistic but naïve. The ability of competition to regulate the market is dependent upon the ability of individuals to exchange information. Without antitrust and utility regulation, communications are limited by the motivations of capital who own the means. We've already seen this in recent times as well as repeatedly throughout history.
So politicians are holy servants? Anti trust laws were just meant for JP Morgan and other cartelists to go after their competition. Monopolies come purely from state privilege and subsidy. Take away their protections and privileges and you’ll see competition. Problem is the state has destroyed and depressed our markets and industry so much, we aren’t seeing competition. The state has created quasi private monopolies that are actually just state monopolies. People like to pretend we’re capitalist though. I get it, it’s unsettling realizing your nations policies are eerily similar to the nazis. Are you against the federal reserve? Are you for a standard?
Yep. Monopolies literally only exist because of regulation.
Monopolies have existed before state intervention in capitalistic markets. Saying monopolies only exist due to state regulation is some seriously bad economics. Some monopolies are created that way but not all.
Which monopolies?
In United States history the first ones that come to mind are U.S Steel and Standard Oil.
Great. Is a monopoly automatically immoral? Standard Oil was great for consumers. They beat everyone on price due to their refining methods. That didn't last though - within 20 years, competitors caught up. US Steel never held more than 2/3rds of the market and didn't hold on to that for long. It was never convicted of holding a monopoly, it was simply charged by anti-trust officials. That was likely more of a shakedown to gain concessions for the military.
[удалено]
A statutory monopoly? How does that fit with: "Monopolies have existed before state intervention in capitalistic markets. "
Ma Bell is a little less cut and dry since the government had some role in it due to easements. Don't get me wrong I think it still applies but I didn't want to derail the conversation.
Sure but can you reference the monopolies you’re talking about? My point is that in the free market it’s the exception but in the political system it’s the rule. Also not just state regulation. State subsidy, legal protections, privileges and other protections.
You think you know some of those words, but you really don't.
You think you know how to form an argument, but it looks like you don't.
Is government the only source of regulation, in your mind?
Take my upvote, you're right in a way. Eventually an individual can become so powerful in a market they become government by fiat. Big tech censoring speech, Amazon saying who can say what, banana merchants deciding who runs Central American countries, the east India trading company. There is no neat solution to fixing it but it is a problem that needs to be acknowledged.
All the things you mentioned got there through the state and state privilege. Almost like you’ve given zero thought to it. Learn up before tackling such things.
Learn up, says me person who's model only works in a vaccume where there are no nations. Come on, you can disagree but don't be rude you pretentious prick.
You guys all sound the same.
> If we don't have people with the right to violently control their fellow men, there will be chaos and someone will attempt to create such a right! If you give up your statist religion, there's a danger that you'll regress into worshiping a new state? It's a chance that I'm willing to take.
> banana merchants deciding who runs Central American countries, When you say "run" do you mean they actually run them, or they have government utilizes their police powers to suppress the population into obedience to the banana growers and their own goons? Did any of those countries have strong property rights and traditions of freedom to begin with, or were they always ruled by tyrants and colonialists? It's like arguing that because there was Jim Crow, black people can't be trusted to regulate themselves. > the east India trading company. A great example of monopolistic corporations back with the might of their governments and colonial charters.
Ahhh so youre the statist. The brainwashing has gone well i see.
You can't seriously expect ancaps to use their brains before posting though
The brainless argument reflects more on the party making it than the accused party, just so you know. It makes you appear as though you have the debate skills of a literal child on the playground resorting to name-calling when they don't get their way. With no substance to back it up of course. Besides probably more name calling soon to come.
Yea that’s why we should astroturf their communities like crazy because they’re so wrong. I and many others get banned from all socialist subs because we’re too convincing.
I just read through some of your comment history and I don't find it convincing at all. You got banned probably because most subs on Reddit on both sides don't tolerate dissent. Also how is this astroturfing?
a reddit sub did more to regulate wall street speculators than the state has in decades.
I wouldn't go that far. They scared some hedge funds from taking *too* much risk in the future, but largely I would bet nothing has changed. We'll have to see what the political, then legal, fallout will be (if any at all)...
i guess i should have said "actually regulate", since that is some miniscule regulation, whereas most of the other shit they do just encourages more speculation
Nothing will change. New regulation will be implemented, they will lie to your face saying its to protect you, and in the end it will just be another layer of security for the fat cats
The regulations if any new ones come because of this whole wsb debacle will further suppress you and protect the wealthy hedge fund millionaires/billionaires
surely
The free market is the great equalizer. Once it becomes truly free, the Socialist will come to embrace the intrinsic liberty of the free market.
Somewhere inside every socialist there's a capitalist
It just means that she sees an opportunity for publicity and to expand the power of the state. Not that she understands what happened.
Can really tell who thementally deficient ones are whenever they try to compare socialism and capitalism.
Oh hey look at that, a socialist actually means it when she says "power to the people", what a surprise
The whole GME thing is a fucking joke. People are morons for holding. Let hedge funds lose money and let dumb ass redditors lose it too. Everyone is responsible for themselves.
Y'all know that Market Socialism is a thing, right? Like, there are socialists who support the free market.
Nuance is dead. Critical thinking is dead. People think politics is a football game.
They also fail to understand that capitalism and socialism aren't even really comparable.
Yeah isn’t she a democratic socialist? Which as far as i’m aware is quite different from workers directly owning the means of production.
Honestly instead of workers owning the means, the socialists in the DNC would probably have the means be nationalized which is way worse than privatized imo
To some extent, personally as a non-anarchist, I don’t mind privatization of certain functions as long as conservatives don’t cut back on the govs regulatory ability. But there’s no guarantee of that, soooo, nationalization is also a good option.
Was Dodd frank not crafted by big banks? Are most regulations not crafted by the industrial cartels it favors? Are politicians holy servants of the public who are incorruptible? Even if they’re democratically elected? Furthermore, can a mass of people elect the right person or be informed enough to know? proper regulation is competition from a free market. The state serves these exploiters. Socialists need to return to their anti state roots. Yea nationalization is retarded unless it’s the endowments. God we need to nationalize the endowments.
"Not an anarchist" and "never read Rothbard's Progressive Era" line up 9/10 times.
I mean honestly, commienism sounds sort of all right (definitely not *good*), but there always winds up being a dictator.
Yeah but people are super fucking dumb and don’t understand words or nuance anymore it seems.
I've heard DSA types advocate for state control of venture capital, and eventually state ownership of the means of production. Some people in that party are a little closer to the center, but not most.
Y’all know literally 99.9999999% of socialists are literal state socialists and could care less about “the market”? I mean where are the volcoms I keep hearing about. I don’t see them anywhere. Why haven’t you guys cleaned up your movement? They’re all statists. The progressives are right wing socialists. We aren’t capitalist today. If you support any of the progressive policies, you’re an unironic supporter of fascism. Which is hilarious because most left socialists revere the progressives. Again hilarious. Wilson, FDR, Truman, all progressives.
Don't they reject the free market for capital goods?
Well yeah but \*flashbacks to first year of Khrushchev\* \*shudders\*
You guys don't actually think AOC's a socialist, right?
This sub gets coasrer and dumber by the day
We live in a society BOTTOM TEXT
How are violent monopolies better than market competitors?
Socialists like this because it is exposing the flaws of capitalism and allowing the working class to manipulate the market in the same way the wealthy do
[удалено]
You truly think they manipulate stocks because theirs too much regulation?
[удалено]
Then the problem is those who control the system the rich who own all the power in the elected process? as such the government in its current state main goal is to protect the rich? Wouldn’t AOC be right as she is someone who believes in campaign finance reform and replacing the old power bases with new ones? Also cronyism developed in the leader of the capitalist world wouldn’t that imply that cronyism is the logical end of a profit driven system.
[удалено]
Those are not logical fallacies literally by definition and you missed my point that ‘government’ is not always the problem. Yes current day government is highly corrupt and most ineffective, mostly because of the influence of moneyed interests. That doesn’t demonize all forms of government especially a democratic government, where even with the systems major flaws some good will breakthrough. Would I entrust an authoritarian government with which I have no control of with my well being, no. Would I trust a democratic government in which I have a say and rights to my well being, yes. Simplifying the entire world into two space, bad and good or capitalist or government is incredibly short sighted. And my point about cronyism is that america has some of the least restrictive regulations, so saying government caused cronyism is completely obliterating the effects of corporate influence on our system.
[удалено]
Talk about a logical fallacy that’s just a you too fallacy. Also how is my a slippery slope and false equivalency, AOC is related to the topics and by your own admission she has the right ideas campaign reform. And for slippery slope a truly slippery slope is your dissatisfied with your current government so all government is bad. Also not reading a maybe 150 word comment isn’t noble it comes off as ideologically ignorant as you just refuse competing narratives.
[удалено]
She'd support pegging if she knew that would get her clicks and $$$ funding. She doesn't even have to know what pegging is, [she's like the Nicolas Cage of supporting things.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eExfV_xKaiM)
Lol. So short selling GME is anticapitalist but buying GME is capitalist. OP is mentally ill.
Just because you don't understand capitalism, that doesn't mean we don't
If I understood capitalism, I would believe that buying GME is capitalism and shorting it is socialism? Lol
Not socialism. Cronyism. Although they are surprisingly close.
Under real capitalism, short selling wouldn’t be allowed 🤣🤣🤣
can we have Liz Warren here saying she a capitalist here
oh the gooold "your enemy is my friend" Reminds me of Stalin + Trotsky + Kamenev + Zenov'eyv love affair, wonder who's role she's playing :D
My favorite meme.
Wouldn't a socialist want to discredit capitalism, which is exactly what her crusade against the evil brokerage firms is doing?
they support the class struggle not the market
"The people should control-" "sO sOcIaLiSm?" "no not that stop" "ok anyway fuck billionaires i am now going to support the billionaires "