4
FUSnowflake 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hey Anna,

Tell us again why you look down on rural Southerners?

4
FUSnowflake 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hunter wants to know how old her daughter is... /sarc>

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

NO way, Dementia Joe.

The American People expect you and Kamala to resign!

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Was it Julius Fucik, "Entry of the Gladiators" (YouTube it. After three or four notes you'll say, wait, that's circus music!)

3
FUSnowflake 3 points ago +3 / -0

REPLYING so I CAN FIND THESE AGAIN

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

See RED4 below:

Q !!Hs1Jq13jV6 ID: 866b8a No.9473673 ? Jun 4 2020 18:49:59 (EST) EAM LOYALISTS: RED1: POTUS twitter removal RED2: Central communications blackout [continental US] RED3: CLAS movement PELOSI or PENCE RED4: Movement of MIL assets [10th Mountain_1st Marine_CPSD_Marine_QVIR] to central locations under guise of citizen riot control. RED5: NAT MIL COM CEN RED6: SEC OF DEF _instruct1 USSS CASTLE_ROCK Q

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +2 / -1

I thought he was from Delaware, not West Virginia.

2
FUSnowflake 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tell Kamala she's doing it wrong all of a sudden / womp womp>

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

A quote from the C.S. Lewis novel That Hideous Strength. The chief of the secret police is explaining how things work, to the protagonist of the novel:

"Don’t you understand anything? Isn’t it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a fierce Right, both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That’s how we get things done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and a Right racket in the Left papers. If it’s properly done, you get each side outbidding the other in support of us—to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we’re non-political. The real power always is."

2
FUSnowflake 2 points ago +2 / -0

Who is Heba? And why do Jacinda's teeth stick out so much, like Chelsea Clinton?

by BQnita
-5
FUSnowflake -5 points ago +1 / -6

Weak sauce. The New York Slimes still hasn't returned their Pulitzer for their coverup of the Holodomor in the Ukraine, where Stalin enforced a policy of genocidal starvation, to the point that some parents had to choose which of their children they would eat.

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

There was a Bloomberg headline yesterday or today which said $6 billion in losses.

1
FUSnowflake 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, yeah. When COVID hit I saw the Baltic Dry Index plummet to like $18 a share (I think it had been around $600, too lazy to double check this instant).

I was gonna back up the truck.

So they stopped trading the index ENTIRELY.

Until May or June; it started up again at $400 and still briefly quadrupled from there, but I'd already given up on it.

I could've retired right there if they hadn't screwed with it.

7
FUSnowflake 7 points ago +7 / -0

No; the Twitter link is about Brennan.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Whenever we see you tweeting like a seditious clown <a href="https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@JohnBrennan</a> we know you are projecting your guilt and corruption in your own vile effort to continue to decieve the American people...you know how much blood you have on your hands and the treason you have committed...tic-toc <a href="https://t.co/VjFFH9N7il">https://t.co/VjFFH9N7il</a></p>&mdash; Tony Shaffer (@T_S_P_O_O_K_Y) <a href="https://twitter.com/T_S_P_O_O_K_Y/status/1072116335952441345?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">December 10, 2018</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

17
FUSnowflake 17 points ago +17 / -0

You're right, you don't know what you're talking about Here's the executive summary of the executive summary.

You can buy a stock and hope the price goes up. You can sell a stock, hoping the price goes DOWN.

When you buy a stock, your risk is limited: you can only lose as much as you paid for the stock, they can't come after you for anything else.

But if you have a brokerage account and they give you certain permissions (you have to have enough money and have a clue what you're doing...)

You can short a stock.

That means, you BORROW some shares from the broker. You SELL the borrowed shares. You are hoping the stock prices goes DOWN.

When the stock price goes down, you buy it back at the lower price, and give those back to your brokerage. You get to keep the difference.

The risk in a short is, NOT just the amount the stock cost when you shorted it. What if the stock goes up? What if the stock was at $1 / share. So you borrowed and sold 2000 shares, for $2000. Great, when the stock goes to 50 cents, you buy it for $1000 (2000 shares times half-a-buck-per-share), and give the shares back, and you've made $1000.

Clear so far?

Now, what's the risk in a short? Let's say you sold 2000 borrowed shares for $1 apiece. Now let's say that company announces they've discovered the cure for liberalism. Their stock goes to $1000 / share !! Now you have to come up with, $2, 000, 000 -- a cool million -- to buy your 2,000 shares back.

In theory there is no limit to what you might owe, by shorting a stock.

Hang on, because it gets worse.

Now there are two kinds of shorts -- not joking, despite the pun -- regular and naked. In a regular short, your broker actually has the shares to borrow. In a naked short, they've sold more shares than actually EXIST.

So when it comes time to buy them back -- it's like all 3 of the Three Stooges trying to go out the same door at the same time. EVERYBODY wants the stock. But there isn't enough to go around. So the price goes UP. That makes all the people with shorts on the stock, go even FURTHER into debt. And so on.

(There's a rule that you can't buy back your shares in a short until the price temporarily drops a bit. So what does that rule do, if it just keeps going UP?)

But there's one more nasty ingredient.

There are organizations called "hedge funds" -- for rich people (net worth usually in the millions at least, or at least (say) $250,000 yr in income,sometimes more than that.) They are called "hedge funds" because they provide a hedge, a shelter, against risk and uncertainty.

Sometimes what the hedge funds do -- and this is kinda near the border of what is legal -- is, they see a stock of a weak company. And they informally say, "We iz ALL gonna short that stock at once, and drive the stock down, and that'll bankrupt the company but make us rich, so YAY US!"

Some hedge funds tried to do this to GameStop. The rationale on the surface, was, hey, retail store + COVID == business sucks. But GameStop had two things.

  1. Some e-commerce
  2. Fanbois who are gamers / weaponized autists, who know how to use every chink in the rules to win.

So when the hedge funds said, "Let's short GameStop" the autists said, F this S, we're gonna buy and drive the price UP.

And the hedge funds (who were doing naked short selling) got caught with their pants down, bigtime. If you owe too much on a short, your brokerage fund, or bank or whatever, can FORCE-sell other stuff you own, to make sure you're good for the money on the short. That happened to the hedge funds here: $2.5 BILLION in losses so far.

So now they're squawking to the FTC and lawyers and Congress and everybody, "Waah! Those nasty redditors aren't letting us bend the rules!"

Hilarity ensues.

view more: Next ›