I'm gonna sit this one out.
I haven't bothered with stocks, and though I really have an urge to jump on it now, I don't think it is necessary.
The stock market has been just a glorified casino for the longest time now, and "the house always wins" is a guarantee.
That's my primary reason for not getting into it, and I think I'm gonna maintain that stance.
Don't get me wrong, I know I'm probably gonna miss out on a lot of money, and I'm hopeful you guys are gonna make a ton!
But... I'm not all that in to money.
It's not out of any sense of fear, but more from a sense that soon money won't matter. The only reason this stock looks appetizing right now is because our tastes have been conditioned by bad players for a long time and it is currently blasting all our taste-buds, and is probably designed to do just that.
I'm sure we're all willing to admit that there is some sort of ruse or scheme behind what Trump set up -- there always is. He hasn't usually just done things for money; he's frequently done things for the better, in whatever way it needs to manifest.
This might all be a scheme to put pressure on the market and show how honest, good stocks and businesses are suppressed in our grand and devious pay-to-play mafia style market.
I think this is all headed to expose how Wall Street makes sure good, honest companies aren't allowed to happen; just like GME shows how they've rig things to always protect them from going bust.
Just like cancer research, even if a cure came out, the bad guys would make sure it never saw the light of day. Same deal here, but with honest businesses trying to provide a needed service with no strings attached.
I'm no expert, and I'm not giving advice on whether or not to invest, but I think it's obvious that we shouldn't treat this like a regular stock. Invest more wisely than ever before. 5D chess is happening, and we can't focus only on the pawns.
Anyways... I suppose I just wanted to see if anyone else shares my sentiments...
Thoughts?
It's hard to skirt "you own 1% of this company" but they still try.
Offloading into shell companies to take the bankruptcy and intricate schemes like in The Producers where they oversell ownership (100 people each own 5% of the company) expecting a loss are still attempted.
I think it comes down to the electronics. If you actually, physically, have the stock receipt in hand, and it is acceptable as proof if all the IT networks go down, then it has value. Otherwise, like your bank account, it's just vaporware.
A stock receipt would make it just as valuable as in hand silver. The fact that there is potential fuckery makes it less. BUT, there are still legal rights that a person has if a share is registered to them (which can and should be done with all shares). Even if they aren't directly registered to you as a person, there are still legal rights of ownership in stocks. Those legal rights are on record and are completely defensible in court.
The biggest difference between money and stocks is that the stock has intrinsic value, money has none. Money is a complete fraud. Stock ownership has legal protections within which fuckery can happen. They are completely different problems. One is a potential, but legally defensible chain of custody problem. The other is a fraud problem. They are not both "vaporware", only money is.
I agree, but what I'm saying is this:
If you trade with an online broker and you don't print your stock certificates, when the power goes down, you've got nothing until it comes back up.
If it never comes back up, and you can't get proof of ownership, then what does that leave you?
Online trading services are shady to me, is all I'm saying.
You're not wrong, and stocks are risky in a full apocalypse scenario, thus why they are below in hand assets. But as everyone knows, "You never go full apocalypse."
If any infrastructure remains, stocks will likely retain their intrinsic value to the purchaser. Anything less than that would be complete destruction of the world. Either businesses would cease to exist, or they (the larger ones) would instigate their own totalitarian regime, holding all the real assets.
I don't see any scenario where society breaks down that far where we survive in meaningful numbers (i.e. they will get their 500M population and then some).