So by shorting a 3.6 billion dollar company, they were going to make a trillion? That's not mathematically possible and the liquidity required wouldn't exist to create that position. A short position can only ever return a max of 100%.
I'm somewhat of a boomer on this website, don't know how to separate it into paragraphs, so anything lengthy ends up looking pretty shit. https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021-212 Edit: additionally, if all the claims are too much for you to bother going into, how about just one: how can people wanting to short squeeze hedge funds manage to succeed in doing so over a period of years if the company is willing to sell more shares?
One issue with trying to beat the shorts if you think a company is being 'looted' is that exactly what you saw play out with AMC and Gamestop can happen: they can create more shares and thus dilute the value of each share and increase the liquidity for short sellers who are trapped to get out. Also, there's no shot that you are allowed 100x leverage by any institutions when playing with stocks, that's closer to forex. Imagine that in practicality: if the stock went up 1% on you when shorting, you'd be smoked. Banks might be crooked, but they also don't want to hemorrhage money for no reason. I don't know exactly what the derivatives numbers included, but a massive chunk of the derivatives market is options, which are dynamically hedged by banks, meaning that they have very little exposure to the movement of the stock. Basically, you'd have to give an actual breakdown of what those derivatives are and how much (or little) collateral is posted for those numbers to mean anything. On a final point, if you believe them, which I'm ambivalent about, the SEC released a report going over how the hedge funds actually got out fairly early in the GME squeeze and that it was mostly a gamma hype movement. There's some logic to this, as his last point about how much money they'd lose if they held it from $2 to $60 is accurate, which is why banks or brokerages they were working with would want to force them to close it out, because otherwise they could get saddled with that massive debt. All in all, there's some elements here that make sense, but this overall thesis that GME will collapse the global financial system smells a whole lot like an attempt to get people to yolo in and/or a rationalization to cling to a trade that has been slowly dying for years.
Kinda like a classic video response. The advantage is that you have essentially unlimited time to first prep and then to go over into as much detail as you want every point of your opponent, which leads to much better responses and deeper ones than can be communicated in an absurd 2 minute limit for a rejoinder.
Ryan Cohen is a grifter. Look at how he pump and dumped, with the most obvious example being Bed, Bath, and Beyond.
While accurate, a lot of times this is used to erroneously argue that we could therefore increase the population on Earth with current tech by like an order of magnitude, which ignores the massive quantities of land required to feed all those people.
As much as I loath modern banks, there's sorta reasons why this would be the case. The major one would be if they thought there was some reason that your finances would be unreliable and thus they'd be left holding the bag having to incur the losses associated with trying to sell a house, whereas a landlord really only cares about your short term finances.
Thanks. I've never heard of that. Yeah, guess I was lucky that my doctor didn't say anything about that.
Huh. I was never given tylenol after getting any sort of vaccine. Baffling.
You're also seeing those values rapidly increase right now, especially among metals. I know on my watchlist palladium, gold, copper, and platinum have all started to break upwards. It's baffling how many people don't see the signs of an economic crash here. When gold starts zooming and stocks start going down, as we reach insane inflation, boy, makes a fella wonder...
Because if it looks like a Soros, and walks like a Goldstein, and talks like a Psaki, it may have a shekel or two.
"Comprehensive lesson plans" massive kek. From my old college, I can tell you most professors don't give a fuck. Organic chemistry was taught from slides the professor found online, and that's at the college level.
I thought Q was always a team of people, never just one individual? Seems bizarre.
You see this all the time on these platforms. I look at WSbets occasionally and all the time somebody will say something about the financial system being primed to collapse, or biden shitting the bed, and the responses will just be things like 'gay bear' or 'well, all the presidents suck' 'Trump was worse.' All just sort of programmed, low effort responses so they don't actually have to challenge any ideas.
Yeah, that's the point. If you read Truth Social's terms of service, it explicitly bans "Posts that include harassment, bullying, hate speech, and spam." Which is a terrible start.
Now just get rid of the rules on "hate speech" and the platform might be trustable. Sorry, I get 4d chess and all that, but those rules never work.
And we all know who did him in, in the end. You guessed it, Frank Stallone.
Yeah, the man was a treasure, and his Bill Clinton segment on the View might be some of the greatest television of all time.
The dark chocolate will knife fight the other dark chocolate in their next ad. It will be very diverse and inclusive.
Calling it useless is an absolute psyop, it's horrifically damaging to any value we hold dear. It's like when people are trained to complain about gov 'not doing anything' instead of looking at all the things they are doing that's fucking you over.
I can notice statistical trends and also not want some random guy having violence committed against him. That's the difference between a collectivist and an individual thinker.
Yup. I don't know if it's true that Gorsuch cared about that doctrine at all, but if he did, that's incredibly retarded and telling that he wouldn't simply oppose it for being obviously unconstitutional.
Yeah, I have similar thoughts. It would be wonderful, but if I had to put odds on it, probably just a means for pushing against personal freedom rather than them trying to oppose a specific threat they see.
Certainly can lead to more, but puts will also have a fixed payout, and for a volatile stock like DJT, I wouldn't expect a very high multiple there. Also keep in mind that for a put to be bought, you'd need sellers, so who is selling hundreds of billions in DJT puts for the deep state to purchase?