But they'll go or not go out of business regardless of what investors think the market value of the company is. If I short sell a stock because I think it will do badly, my short sell has exactly zero effect on company performance. — Benkei

Right, but the play here - as with so many of these predatory hedge funds - was specifically to never have to cover their short positions on account of whatever overshorted company going out of business. In this case GS. This isn't just hedging - this is weaponized hedging, with profits indexed to the literal destruction of companies.

If someone's retirement hinges on putting people, say, Gamestop employees, out of a job, then they can die hungry and cold.

Reddit is actively discouraging people from buying silver and anyone who thinks otherwise has no idea what they are talking about.

No one's under any illusions about this being about 'saving' Gamestop or whathaveyou. Hell, scratch a company operating under modern capitalism and a find a maggot infested nest, you're always going to be able to dig up some dirt. Nor will you not find companies or funds who will profit off any kind of action, be it Blackrock or whatever. Cooption by these forces isn't an argument, it's the operating environment, the inescapable ambience. Again, forget purity. I don't care that not every single firm in Wall St is hurting. Anyone after that right now is chasing shadows.

But one or two are, publicly, by a decentralized, mass action driven by both greed and schadenfreude effecting some measure of wealth redistribution and by God lets co-opt the shit out of it. More 'fuck Wall Streets' and more 'the game is rigged' - I don't even care about the motivations. We keep whining about corporations coopting action, and when there's a chance to do just that at the level of narrative we whine about how impure it is. If we leave copting to capital, the left is less than useless. The right don't give a shit and frankly neither should we. Politicize, divide, agitate - even if it's just narrative.

Yet, it would be incorrect to represent the event as the rise of the 'little guy,' as a revolt of the people. There are no just rules in the accelerating process of financial speculations. Redditors' way to skyrocket the price of GameStop is a kind of massive speculative action. It harms several hedge funds, but it does not threaten The Wall-Street's financial order. Do the people claim their right to create fiat money from the state and banks? They do not. In fact, the Redditors' speculation is dependent on the same regulations and mechanisms that allow short-term bets. There are no new instances of the fiat money creation. — Number2018

I think this is a bad political read of the situation. Or at least, a totalizing one that blinds itself from nuance by instituting a single, far-away standard from which these actions are meant to be judged - "whether or not this threatens Wall Street's financial order". In fact, even on that score, it's pretty clear they feel threatened, and, more importantly, are reacting accordingly. The attempt to close ranks and halt buying across multiple platforms is pretty wild, as is the sheer ramping up of propaganda across finance media to portray what's going on as some kind of kiddish trolling - as if these funds do not do the exact same thing only with a suit and a tie on; as if the consequences may not be entirely incommensurate with that portrayal.

Second, you seem to be holding on to some idea of purity with respect to the instruments involved, as if any challenge to the financial order must appear ex nihilio from a place of unsullied soil of virginal revolution. But this is messianic fantasy. If the instruments used to maim the master belong to the master then so be it. In fact, all the better. I hope people use their regulation against them, I hope people turn their speculation against them. That this stuff is finally happening on their own turf is an occasion for delight, not pessimism.

And more than that, this stuff has raised more class consciousness than the entirety of BLM and Occupy combined. Is it opportunistic? Hell yeah. But politics is opportunistic, and anyone on the left who pooh-poohs opportunism for high-minded purity is reactionary. You take what Kairos offers. And not also to talk about the decentralized, democratic aspects of this - no leaders, relatively low buy-in. And just to be clear, I don't want to overly romanticize this - this could break horribly and everything could end in tears (as if it doesn't already end in tears, all the time, everywhere). In fact, it's more likely than not going to end just so. But anyone who wants risk-free challenge is again, a reactionary in disguise.

Neither debtors nor creditors think of re-paying or reimbursing of debts. With zero interest rates, the accelerating virtualization and dematerialization of money will continue to be the engine and source of the neoliberal financial system's power. It looks like the neoliberal corporate power 'outside' the state will resonate with the power of the state itself.... Do we witness the rise of post-neoliberal order, where the distinction between major debtors and creditors become insignificant? — Number2018

Debt has only ever been an instrument of sovereign and subjective discipline - there is no reason to think that these people will not pick and choose who to enforce debts upon, as and when it suits them. Don't give them that credit.

When considering homosexuality as a defect I find myself trying to think of problems it may cause to anyone effected by it and possible solutions to whatever problems there may be. — praxis

This language is so fucking vile, for fucks sake. 'Effected by homosexuality'? Like what, a fucking virus? Does anyone speak of being 'effected by heterosexuality'? Fuck right off. This is why we don't allow threads 'considering homosexuality as a defect', because it leads to utter fucking trash like this.

And I said it once and I will say it for the last time, you want to continue this discussion I will remove you from this fucking forum without blinking I do not give a shit who you are.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16IV7TIbE4hhS25g30dg3pytMCOigoY7x/view

:heart: :hearts: :death:

On gDrive because CNBC keeps taking down the full video elsewhere.

Lol it's a liberal wet dream.

IE they put in a requirement that someone was an institutional investor in order to buy GME. — fdrake

This shit, this shit is gonna become more common. And it'll be done in the name of shielding from volatility and 'market stabilization' or some crap.

So, was what Robinhood etc were doing earlier something more than just requiring 100% cash on hand to buy? Like, you couldn't buy it at all, even in cash? — Pfhorrest

I think RH has a tiered system depending on your subscription fee. But they were, for a period, specifically halting any buying of GME. They're putting it down to liquidity problems, which may even be true, but it still stinks. I read of some people having RH force the sale of GME stock on their behalf at one point, but I haven't seen much traction on that story so I don't know how trustworthy it is.

One would hope this would lead to a demand for brokers who promise not to do this sort of thing, and a mass exodus from platforms like Robinhood. — Kenosha Kid

True, but if brokerage becomes consolidated - much like ratings agencies - what demands people have won't matter. That's my worry anyway.

Mmm such as Greece. — Kenosha Kid

Greece but also Argentina, Mexico, and Italy, among other places. Aside from Varoufakis check out Jerome Roos' Why Not Default? and Wolfgang Streeck's Buying Time where they really delve into the politics of how lending conslidation functions. Also, I realized in my big speculative rant I missed the most obvious mode of how this stuff is being prevented - by simply shutting down the forums where people gather to talk about this stuff. Both the wsb discord and facebook page were shut down in the last two days, even though the reddit page remains up.

Did you mean @fdrake? I didn't mention margin. But yeah, for the moment it seems they're opening up again somewhat after the furious (bi-partisan!) backlash against their denying the ability to buy. Now it seems you can, but with the kind of limitations you mentioned.

we're probably going to see legislation criminalising the purchase of stocks that the financial elite have a vested interest in — Kenosha Kid

I actually have a feeling it will be done far more subtly than this - in fact, we're already seeing how the response is shaping up. It's not to criminalize the purchasing of stock, but to control access to brokerage. Hence why Robinhood and others - who have a vested interest in servicing the hedge funds which provide them the majority of their business - stopped the purchasing of GME stock, and only allowing selling. What's being played out now in SEC complaints is how legal this is - and the pessimist in me reckons it's going to be A-OK.

This is how the elites govern now - by means of 'structural power', where they close ranks and deny access to means rather than end-product. One precedent for this which I've studied alot is in the case of sovereign debt, where solidarity among lending institutions (banks and so forth) simply refuse to lend more to indebted countries in order to enforce austerity and political change (this is basically the story of international finance relations since the 70s, and no one talks about it). This kinda of neoliberal strategy is favoured because it sticks with the script of "open-markets": the state isn't denying anything, it's allowing certain institutions to do stuff (even if that stuff happens to be denying access). It's devolution of power 'outside' the state and 'freedom' to corporate action.

Anyway, what happened here was or is the identification of gap in this kind of structural power, which is what allowed this bubbling-up of organization from 'below' to gain any traction. And it took all but three or four days to shut the tap off - although obviously not completely as there's brokerages still willing let people buy the stock. At the very least this is going to spur an attempt to consolidate brokerage agencies under the direct control of hedge funds, probably by means of massive push for regulation whose costs and burdens only they can bear (if Robinhood isn't made bankrupt by the shenanigans that it's pulling, I have every expectation that business models like it will be legislated out of existence in the future now). But this is just speculation on my part.

But as usual yeah - the free market is a fucking lie.

It really wouldn't.

Just to be clear, I removed your post that suggested that homosexuality is against nature or somesuch. Do it again, and the next thing to be removed will be yourself. First and only warning.

Also just because this is the best thing ever:

Also ma boi Benny

I'm sorry the truth hurts your feelings. Will try to be more pc next time.

This thread isnt about homosexuality being a defect, its about why the other thread was deleted. — DingoJones

Which is why, were you able to read, I spoke of those who looked to turn this thread into the one that was deleted. So maybe save the hysterics about 'paying attention' for the home ground hey?

This isn't a discussion. You want to wonder if being homosexual is a defect - any more then being a black person or a jew is a defect - you can do it elsewhere. Do it here and I will make sure you can only do it elsewhere. I'm not 'looking for reasons', I'm telling you what they are. Your - or someone else's 'confusion' - is not my problem, nor anyone else's.

Is being French a disability — Baden

:chin: :zip:

I swear to God if you all turn this thread into one which was explicitly deleted by a mod I will ban the lot of you.

Shipping to Australia means that books regularly cost me that much :cry: Like, if I can get a book <AUD$35, that's a rare and good day.

Wow, I just took a quick look, I didn't realize how hard this is to find. There's a 2nd hand copy selling here for USD$250, but that's kind of ridic. If you want, I can shoot you a pdf copy.

https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-prisons-coronavirus-pandemic-c8c246f00695f37ef2afb1dd3a5f115e

Credit where credit's due, this is very very good. Federal prisons still only constitute 6% of the US prison population, so still only a relatively minor change.

Andre Leroi-Gourhan's Gesture and Speech. I cannot, cannot, cannot recommended this enough.

By focusing on problems raised by said philosophers, and their corresponding solutions or questions. To really help remember texts, you need to understand not just what so and so said, but their motivations for saying so. So what's Kant after? Securing objectivity in the face of Humeian challenge, among other things. What Plato after? Securing truth against the challenge posed by the sophists, among other things. Every philosopher has his or her 'problem(s)' for which the rest of the philosophy actually follows as a response. That's the motivating thread you need to cotton on to otherwise you'll lose track very easily.

Also it helps reading comparatively - how does Hume differ from Kant differ from Schopenhauer differ from Nietzsche? So read secondary texts that do this comparative work and which pick out this or that problem (aesthetics, ethics, truth, etc) and how different authors approached it. You'll start thinking about philosophical books less as a random collection of thoughts than as motivated solutions to problems raised within them (where a 'solution' might even be as general as 'asking a more appropriate question').

Commenting to show appreciation of the stellar defense of OLP put up by @Anthony Nickles.

My only bugbear is that it is called OLP at all. The name is misleading and invites hostility. It's just good philosophy.

No.

Incorrect. Intersectional feminism is somewhat more specific, clue's in the name. — Kenosha Kid

:lol:

Caught up with the rest of him.

Oh boy. I'd say I can't wait for videos of the muh freedums crowd getting dragged out of these things kicking and screaming, but they're liable to hurt people while doing it. Still probably gonna enjoy them tho, provided others don't get shot.

When I went to University, Jung's name was strictly verboten in the psychology department. — Wayfarer

Sounds like an excellent department! Gnosticism seems right though.

Ellen Meiksins Wood -Liberty and Property: A Social History of Western Political Thought from Renaissance to Enlightenment (2nd part of the 2 volume history). First volume was interesting, a very unique approach to reading the history of philosophy, as theoretical responses to tensions between the state, property holders, and producers. Very different to the usual 'immanent' account of ideas responding to other ideas in historical vacuum.

Not all clinical psycologists are self-help authors but JP certainly is. From what I've seen though, he seems to have led a revival not so much in Nietzsche, but in Jung, whose name I hadn't seen brandied about since JPs rise to fame. It doesn't help that Jung is almost universally ignored as the kooky wing of an already seemingly kooky enterprise - psychoanalysis.

I don't think JP is so much as 'viewed' at all within philosophy, let alone viewed negatively or positively. Philosophers are apt simply to ignore him. They don't cite self-help authors any more than they cite Marie Kondo or the guy who wrote the Subtle Art of not Giving a Fuck, whatever his name is. It's not a left or right thing, it's an academic relevance thing.

:vomit: :vomit: :vomit:

Almost the entirety of the what happened at the capitol was planned on Facebook. Yet no calls to ban Facebook, and everyone fawning over their decision to ban people:

"Facebook not only facilitated organizing for the Jan. 6 event in Washington that culminated in the deadly Capitol riot; it has spent the past year failing to remove extremist activity and election-related conspiracy theories stoked by President Trump that have radicalized a broad swath of the population and led many down a dangerous path.

Throughout 2020, Facebook’s efforts to curb violent activity and disinformation were either too late or ineffective or both. It banned a boogaloo network in June after members of Facebook boogaloo groups were linked to a terrorism plot and murder, but its enforcement of the new policy fell short. Over the summer, Facebook banned militia groups, but it failed to take down the page for a militia event that led to the deadly shooting of two protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The company’s new crackdown on the phrase “stop the steal” came only after the mob attack on the Capitol."

https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/articles/capitol-attack-was-months-making-facebook

There is zero need to read philosophical texts in the original unless you are getting paid for it.

This discussion was merged into "Mother Nature" and Other Poems

This discussion was merged into "Mother Nature" and Other Poems