Cheap reply that. That was in respect to the theory that numbers are embedded in nature. I know enough to point out your earlier statement doesn't necessarily hold, enough to point out your incorrect interpretation of what I said and enough to know you haven't dealt with any substantive point I made.

But sure, act like a denigrating asshole if you like.

market cap only reflects the expected performance of investors. That in itself doesn't affect Gamestop's performance.

Look at it this way, when a company issues a stock for the first time it's like it gets a perpetual loan from the investor and in return will pay a variable interest (dividends) which is related to company's performance. This loan can be transferred from investor to investor and prices for the loan will vary depending on expected dividends and therefore expected performance. One investor pays another for the right to the dividends but the original amount loaned to the company doesn't change.

Shorting a stock is again just transactions between investors, first you borrow one from an investor and sell it to another investor, then later you buy one from yet another investor to return the borrowed stock to the first investor. These are all transactions between investors with no effect to the company but says something about investors' expectations of the performance of the company.

Except your conclusion doesn't follow from what I said. We can choose what we call the result of 1+1 but we can't change what it is in fact trying to describe. That is to say, mathematics isn't necessarily just a human construct if that position happens to be correct. I'm unfortunately not very well versed in the theory behind it but I do know it exists.

Also, I did go more directly into what legitimacy is and this is a bit of a tangent to it. I suppose my position summarised is that legitimacy is in many cases intersubjective.

Edit: Also, this doesn't make and sense.

However, immediately afterwards you contradict yourself by claiming that the legitimacy of the absolute of reality can be questioned - in the point where "some people claim that mathematics is within nature" -. Your contradictory reasoning - even if it was not what you meant - — Gus Lamarch

The idea that mathematics is embedded in nature reinforces the prior example, it doesn't contradict it.

Without knowing what's in both contracts there's no way of knowing who is in the right here.

the short answers are no, no and no. The market price of a stock in no way changes the capital of a company and therefore has no effect on its solvency. I suppose some banks might be persuaded by the market expectations of the companies performance to give loans to the extent market capitalisation is a measure of that but not for a volatile stock like this.

It shows which companies have what short position in what stock above a certain threshold. So it doesn't directly show net short but you can probably derive it from there.

Exchange data probably contains it. If I'm not mistaken you need to flag short sales in the order message.

If there's something shitty about shorting a struggling brick and mortar retailer during a pandemic, then there's something much shittier about removing the people's ability to support that retailer/buy that stock in order to help out your boys over at Melvin. — BitconnectCarlos

This doesn't help Gamestop in any way. They've already issued those shares and received the notional value. Any premium being paid goes to the seller.

Short positions of certain sizes have to be reported to the competent authorities in EU. Don't know about the US: https://www.afm.nl/en/professionals/registers/meldingenregisters/netto-shortposities-actueel

I think it remains the case that brokerages stopped people from being able to buy GME even with all their own money up front. But they allowed people simultaneously to sell it. Robinhood and Etoro definitely did that - a couple of friends tried to buy the stocks with their own money and couldn't. But it was fine to sell the stock! — fdrake

Yes, that is correct, the alternative was asking even more margin (above 100%) but that has the risk of causing a fire sale because it quickly reduces (potential) yield to the point where you're better off taking your money elsewhere. Upping margin requirements from 50% to 80% is different, while losing leverage also reduces potential yield it also lowers the risk you run so can be considered an acceptable trade off. Posting margin above 100% no longer lowers your risk (as a trader).

Yes, sorry, language thing. In Dutch borrowing = lenen and lending = uitlenen. I still get them confused at times.

Requiring cash on hand or 100% margin for a volatile stock is entirely reasonable and banks and brokers can freely set these margin levels as they see fit. The clearing broker and clearing members are guaranteeing all these trades will settle vis-a-vis all the other participants of the clearing system. That allows everybody else to trade without knowing their counterparty and whatever settlement risk might be involved with that. From a risk management perspective it's necessary to allow a lot and that includes telling traders to fuck off with orders unless they post additional margin.

Banning trading in a specific stock or derivative is possible too but with a reasonable notification period - which can be very short in volatile markets. For instance, I once bought KIOR stock and that tanked into penny stocks and the costs for the bank to pay the deposit fees were no longer in line with the value of the underlying stock so they told me to get rid of it or they'd close out the position for me on a specific future date.

Problem with Robin Hood is that margin lending is embedded in its use case as far as I can tell and if hordes of dummies lend margin to buy a volatile and shitty stock then quite obviously banning them to buy, in order to protect the recovery rate on those loans, is an obvious risk measure.

So quite frankly, I think the outrage is totally misplaced.

I don't get your conclusion based on what I said. Why don't you walk me through the argument? You know, legitimise your reaction.

You forget that what makes this "fact" "real" is pure human communal interpretation and perception. Nothing guarantees that 1 + 1 = 2, other than our finding that "1 + 1 = 2". — Gus Lamarch

Actually the jury is out on that. The names we give to numbers are ours but even without names nature doesn't change in such a way that I can ever add 2 apples together and get 3. So some people consider numbers and even wider mathematics as embedded in nature.

As to what makes legitimacy legitimate. If we're talking social legitimacy, it's acceptance of the position by the relevant community in power. Democratic legitimacy is about following the right rules. And usually when trying to get legitimacy through democratic and social means, people will refer to objective idea of legitimacy such as divine dispensation, higher morals etc. Those usually reflect the dictates of public conscience at a certain time in w certain place.

What makes legitimacy legitimate is therefore subject to the social and political organisation of a group of people and their shared historical and moral framework.

:rofl: Yeah, as if a good economic crisis has ever led to a change in economic policy. Not in recent history at least. Crises compound stupidity because when people are confronted with change, especially unwanted change, they cling to what they know.

some people will do the choosing as others will do the suffering. Aka, the capitalist and government versus the worker and tax player.

instituting discriminatory racial policies that target people based on the color of their skin — NOS4A2

Clearly I was talking about race and race-based policy and medicine. I mistakenly thought you were as well, but I guess your entire argument was a red herring. — NOS4A2

Clearly you're an idiot who doesn't speak English.

You're operating under the moronic assumption that every discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong. — Benkei

It is wrong because race, as fuzzy as it is superstitious, is no proxy for genetic susceptibility and actual biology. — NOS4A2

Skin colour (and not "race", but a telling leap of logic there from you mr "colour blind") is most definitely a proxy for melanoma risk by the way. — Benkei

I never said there is anything wrong with discrimination, so your point about bleach is a stupid one. — NOS4A2

I have always been speaking about race, race-based discrimination — NOS4A2

You've been talking race, in response to a point I made about discriminating based on skin colour while simultaneously accepting there is nothing really wrong with discrimination. You, sir, are simply confused.

also, maybe stop equating skin colour with race, racist.

:yawn: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28973033/

This is a complete non sequitur as you conveniently ignore the point

but for a justified purpose — Benkei

Why we're discriminating matters. It's why I don't drink bleach but do drink scotch, because I have a discriminating taste. It's also why I try to keep talking to you to a bare minimum.

Skin colour (and not "race", but a telling leap of logic there from you mr "colour blind") is most definitely a proxy for melanoma risk by the way. But yeah, I suppose the study of integrative genetics is total bullshit. :yawn:

It's not a philosophical or economical discussion. It's raw politics. And what currently is happening has about 20% to do with MMT. See this fine article (in Dutch) by an acquintance:

https://www.iexprofs.nl/Column/478919/centrale-banken/Pas-op-voor-de-nieuwe-monetaire-gekte.aspx

MMT in total might work, I dont known. But what we're doing now is bullshit and when people bring up MMT they're just trying to sell bullshit as a good idea because endlessly printing money is part of a theory that also requires you to flexibly raise taxes, depending on the rate of inflation, stop issuing bonds and guarantee everyone a job with the government!

You're operating under the moronic assumption that every discrimination on the basis of skin colour is wrong. It isn't. Doctors discriminate on the basis of skin colour because people of different skin colours are more or less susceptible to different diseases. Discrimination but for a justified purpose, ergo not racist. Likewise, the discrimination on the basis of skin colour to right a historic wrong or to combat persistent systemic racism is entirely justified as it is an instrument to reach justice and fairness.

ah, the affirmative action is racism canard. Or worse, the correcting of injustice is injustice itself! Racist much? Come on, trot out your "I don't see no colour" bullshit again pretending "I'm not racist but everybody else is".

How would you handle the virus mitigation going forward in a house with differing opinions about COVID? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I think that's the question for Nick and the Indians: How do they see it going forward when you want to social distance etc.?

Edit: and I get it the other side in this. I'm fucking done with the lock downs myself. I have a depressed family member that I see deteriorating every week. I've got a kid who is not playing enough with kids her age because her school is closed. I used to be out and about every day and I look like a ghost. I have met 5 of my new colleagues in person in the last year when I started a new job in May. I miss office banter, talking at the coffee corner, seeing my friends to play a board game etc. It's totally worthless living like this and I have fun kids and a wife for company. And I'm pretty stoic about this sort of stuff. So for a lot of people it's basically hell.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/25/dominion-rudy-giuliani-lawsuit-election

I'm not complaining.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/24/fauci-says-he-was-the-skunk-at-the-picnic-in-trumps-covid-team

Smart man. Especially avoiding damning Trump. He needs to be seen at independent if he wants to have maximum appeal to convince people to follow his advice and get vaccines, instead of appearing as another partisan player.

Lock down hard and early. — Banno

Exactly. This is what I hate about our current government because they appear incapable of doing that. Our current lock down started with 10k positive tests per day. We are now at 5k, which isn't good enough because we remain in lock down. Then why the fuck didn't we go in lock down at 5k in the first place? We would've been back to loosening of restrictions already instead of a curfew causing riots throughout the country, which are super spreader events themselves. :rage:

You're moving from jaw width to facial width-to-height ratio.

Such as jaw width being related to level of aggressiveness.

I know. And Peterson concludes things from it that do not follow from the study.

Studies support women changing preferences in how men look. The link between jaw width and aggression is totally spurious. That's driven by the fact we're no longer hunter-gatherers chewing hard, uncooked foods.

I've never particulary liked Peterson. I see too much bullshit tweets from him. Like:

Women: if you usurp men they will rebel and fail and you will have to jail or enslave them.

Errr... what?

Or this stuff: "You can test a woman's preference in men. You can show them pictures of men and change the jaw width, and what you find is that women who aren't on the pill like wide-jawed men when they're ovulation, and they like narrow-jawed men when they're not, and the narrow-jawed men are less aggressive. Well, all women on the pill are as if they're not ovulating, so it's posibble that a lot of the antipathy that eixsts right now between women and men exists because of the birth control pill. The idea that women were discriminated against across the course of history is appalling."

I mean seriously? I don't even know where to start with this stuff and will just throw up my hands.

At the same time, he warns women who would attempt to compete on the boy's own turf, in order to achieve professional careers, that they are bound to become very depressed or even suicidal in later life. He likes to provide examples from his clinical experience of career women who became very depressed because they lost their opportunity to flourish through raising children. — Pierre-Normand

Maybe because "career women" can afford a shrink?

Thank God for YouTube because reading is for pussies! Hooray!

I didn't say it was a shoe in, I'm saying it's not Biden that won the election. Other people did it for him. It's the Squad chosing not to make waves, Bernie endorsing and community organisers getting out the vote, Trump being a moronic idiot, etc.

Biden did shit except show up and not stumble. It's people like Stacey Abrams that won this election for him.

Maybe that straw that broke the camel's back? Or perhaps he's thinking "job done" after all the court stuffing they managed?

Unsourced but I really couldn't give a shit either way.

When was being tough on crime and drugs not fashionable for the conservative right? But notice his tone with respect to race, signing up to carbon treaties etc. and how that changed in less than 4 years.

It's just a flu. Your data is false because the numbers are inflated. You're a fool to believe the CDC and fake news media. The WHO is bought and paid for by the Chinese and Big Pharma.

isn't this just political calculation? Being tough on crime and drugs is a conservative position and as a centrist this is what you need to pursue to hold the center.

That tells us he changes his political opinions as he changes his clothes, according to the fashion.