/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>1820202
>the obvious conclusion to a hollowed out empire is a level playing field for both parties? enough to where it's completely even? you can't be serious
That's usually what the death of an empire usually looks like
Read a history textbook.

>>1820204
hardmode: post a wiki link to a bourgeoise election that was ever exactly 50/50

>>1820209
Why do you even care so much I already said in an earlier post that democracy is dead so the fact that the playing field is "level" doesn't even matter. It's all a scam.

Look the election is unpredictable. Trump did lose the popular vote 2 times in a row by increasing margins but all the polling is pointing to him. Who knows, maybe people won't actually go through with voting 3rd party, maybe rfk will drop out and endorse buden. As it stands every poll says biden is honna lose.

>>1820215
>they want a wiki link
lmao

>>1820219
nah bro you have to post a link to wikipedia otherwise everything you say is irrelevant.

>>1820235
>glowpedia
iaintclickingthatshit.jpg

I have no clue what is going on but Japan's Nikkei just plunged over -1000 today. Equating into a -3% day.

This would be the equivalent of the Dow dropping -1000 in one day. Not sure what is going on in the Japan exchange. They are blaming inflation recovery but it is never that simple.

The entire Japanese market is in freefall except for a few things.

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/japanese-market-sharply-lower-down-3-1033264166

>>1828891
> led losses in Asia on Friday, falling 3.81% and closing at 19,527.12, its lowest level in over a month as most major markets in the region fell amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.
>Asian equities declined as a person familiar with the matter told NBC News that Israel carried out a limited strike in Iran. Stocks and risk assets tumbled, while safe havens rose.
> was down 2.66%, paring earlier losses and ending at 37,068.35, while the broad based Topix fell 1.91% to 2,626.32. On a weekly basis, the Nikkei shed 3.65%.

>Overnight on Wall Street, all three major indexes ended mixed, with the S&P 500 posting five straight days of losses, its longest losing streak since last October. The broad index lost 0.22%, while the Nasdaq Composite
dropped 0.52%.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/04/19/asia-markets.html

>>1828891
save the anime

NVDA -10

Yo.

US faces stagflation threat – Business Insider
https://swentr.site/business/596658-us-economy-stagflation-slow-growth/

>>1828894
Gold chads stay winning

>>1837031
i wonder where the inflation is coming from. there has to be a huge amount of dollars entering circulation but indirectly or it would be noticed. im sure its a bunch of different factors but id say china selling off U.S treasury bonds (40% drop since 2013) moves the needle the most

>>1837063
It's seller's inflation, aka Greedflation. Read Weber, not Max but Isabella.

they know something

prostitution predicts crisis coming

>>1841617
i think this dumb stripper index meme is just that, a meme for funny headlines, every other consumer indicator should be right in line and it shouldn't have extra predicting power

>stagflation

Cool, very nice.

GameStop and other meme stocks are doing a repeat of the short squeeze from 2021.

The SEC has halted the stock SEVERAL times.

Once again, people want to organize and attack the market but the capitalist don't want people to play in this way and they don't think anyone should have the power to squeeze except themselves.

>>1853516
The stock market is a casino and in casinos the house always wins, find a way around them and they'll immediately change the rules

>>1853516
>Once again, people want to organize and attack the market

They want to make money sir. Dont be gullible.

>>1838368
Two weeks

>>1853516
It's not like we left and came back. We never left.

Like I said years ago the price is fake and we aren't leaving. People called me a scam artist or whatever. I pointed out fluctuations in the price weren't retail just randomly buying and selling for no reason, people said I was lying.

Now GME is shooting up in price again. A good portion of which came from pre-market volatility (where retail can't trade) and everyone's acting like people randomly decided to buy in (again, for no reason).

The short squeeze in 2021 wasn't some flash in the pan "came and went" thing. It came, was halted, people waited, and (hopefully) it's gonna gain some more momentum. We'll see.

Short sellers never closed their positions. It's not that hard to understand. They just kept folding them into shell companies and trying to obscure how much they really owe. It's like saying "I beat Cancer in 2021" because you stopped doing chemo and let your hair grow back.

Eitherway, it's a good day for my stonks.

>>1853775
>my stonks
>CPUSAnon is a petit
I knew it.

>>1853779
Marx bought and played stocks

>>1853779
>petite bourgeoisie is when you own stocks

I work in a grocery store. The stonk in question is mostly GME. We’re going to participate in capitalism anyways, so I might as well try to make some money.

>>1853801
We need more information in order to determine your class status. Is your hair dyed in a non-standard color?

>>1853775
This is absolutely hilarious.

There have been 10 market halts on AMC and GameStop stocks today. They don't want the commoners to get in on the action. GameStop and AMC are being used as vehicles for people to make it big right now. E-Trade "randomly" had issues yesterday. I haven't even looked at Robinhood because they were the biggest hypocrite last time this happened. The casino must allow people to play right? Lmfao. The manipulation is incredibly blatant.

The meme stocks are flying up. Hedge funds are do fragile. I hope we get more videos of the old fuckers at hedge funds raging on national tv.

>>1854239
I went to a Catholic School: no non-standard hair colors and no gaudy neon clothes for me, sir.

>>1854254
There was a great video ages ago of some hedgie losing tons of money shorting GME and throwing a chair in the office, grumbling, "You mother fuckers!" Can't find it now though.

A lot of people are saying the current runup could be anything from some 3 year rollovers finally coming due, to GameStop doing a limited stock buyback. There was some TA that got proven mostly correct which argued that the algorithm shorting GME was going for a "slow bleed" approach; this makes the most sense for shorts because if they dropped the price too quickly then GameStop's investors would snatch up the shares at a discount, but if they let the price rise too high then they risk getting margin called.

There's also the fact that, as I understand it, the only way to feasibly keep the price down is to expand their short position and hope that sudden price drops will scare investors off. GameStop investors, however, aren't acting "rationally" and treating price drops as a discount. So all the Hedge Funds have really done is picked at a scab and made their wound even bigger. Or maybe a more fitting metaphor would be a guy who's done so much cocaine that if he were to quit cold turkey he'd drop dead, so all he does is snort more and more coke and pray his heart doesn't explode.

This is the same mindset that led to Wall Street making bad bets on the housing market: just pure greed and corruption. And I'm hoping my position is similar to the guys who shorted the housing market and made it big.

I hope a few anons here bought and held.

>>1854313
I had my fill dabbled in crypto a few years ago but I hope you make it so you can tell those vile boomers at work to fuck off

>>1854318
Thanks man; if this thing pops and I make tons of money I might do a steam giveaway on here.

It looks like they're suppressing the price during market hours (likely to encourage selling from retail, unlikely to happen for most actual GME investors) and letting it run after hours. So far it's ~$55 per share as I'm posting, translating to nearly $41k in GME for me.

Still Holding.

>>1854254
>The casino must allow people to play right?

No. It must not. The casino does what it wants.

>The manipulation is incredibly blatant.

Oh noes, powerful people wont let me have power too

>>1854634
Y'know it's been a while since I brought up the GameStop play, namely an understanding of how it still works within the confines of a Marxist understanding of Capitalism.

'Kay so a lot of liberals act all surprised when the market proves itself to be manipulative, when Capitalists break their own rules to "win", and when what Capitalism says about itself is proven as total bullshit. The thing with GameStop is it's predicated on understanding that all of that is true, and using it to make a ton of money. The big problem I've encountered from a lot of other Socialists (though I've seen a few Comrades who hold GME too) is that for as much as we talk about materialism, they're taking a wholly idealistic look at GameStop. The argument against GameStop is literally just vibes, that's it. I've argued this point a ton of times and I don't think I've been proven wrong yet. The people saying "GameStop is going to zero, quick!" never base that assumption off actual reality but just a vibe. They think GameStop should be just a "dying brick and mortar" and so they imagine it is, even when the actual data says otherwise.

Alright, so with that said, why is it that GameStop works within the confines of Capitalists cheating? Problem is, a lot of Socialists see Capitalism as the completely unobscured and unrestrained will of the Bourgeoisie, but even a quick study of Marx shows that the Bourgeoisie aren't gods. They're more than capable of being idiots and making mistakes: from overproduction of goods, to getting too greedy, to any number of issues. Why did 2008 happen? Well, because a bunch of rich Capitalists had bribed regulators, gave absurd mortgages to people who couldn't possibly afford them, and the system was so decentralized that when the bill came due plenty of capitalists were completely blindsided by the consequences of their actions. It was only a lucky few investors, chief among them being Michael Burry, that saw the crash coming and shorted the housing market. And again and again you'd have other Capitalists calling them insane, idiots, crazy. Burry essentially had to go to war with his own clients to make his play. There are ways, often once in a lifetime ways, to catch Capitalists with their pants down. Burry and a few others still made their money, the Bourgeoisie didn't confiscate it all out of spite (though Burry personally was investigated by the FBI) that the "losers" were right, they didn't even have a legal means to!

The GameStop Squeeze thesis works on the premise that Hedge Funds are greedy, short-sighted, and (again!) caught with their pants down. It presumes a lot of what Marxists already believe: that Capitalists lie, cheat, and steal. To understand it, you first need to understand shorting and naked shorting:

Shorts and Naked Shorts
Alright, so, what is shorting a stock? Say you think that a company is gonna lose money or suffer a financial hardship, and you want to make money off it; you'd short the stock. In essence, big investors will "borrow" peoples' stocks and promise to return them at a later date, paying a fee for returning it later than intended. The borrower then turns around and sells the stock they just borrowed, thinking they'll buy back when the stock price goes down and pocket the difference as profit. Simple enough, yeah?

Well in comes "Naked Shorting" which is, technically speaking, illegal. Since so much of Wall Street trading is digital, its entirely possible to "sell" the same stock to multiple people. Imagine for a moment that your buddy, Bob, lends you his car. You turn around and sell Bob's car to Tyler, and you hand him a deed to the car and everything; you still want more money, so you talk to John and "sell" Bob's car to him too, printing up a new deed and everything, you keep doing this again and again with the understanding that type of car Bob drives will keep depreciating in value, you can always just buy him a new one with the money you're making. You're essentially committing fraud on a massive scale, but since your buyers are apparently satisfied with just owning a digital "deed" to the car, everything is peachy.

Now there's one aspect of shorting stocks I neglected to mention, but it's important. Because of our absurd tax laws, you can only be taxed on your short position after you close out of it and return the stock you purchased. Sounds innocuous enough, right? Here's the thing though: what if the company goes under?

If a business goes bankrupt, what happens to the stock? It's worth nothing. Less than nothing. And do you know what that means? You don't have to return the shares to the person you borrowed it from. Who wants a whole $0 in stock? They won't even ask for it! So if the company goes bankrupt and you keep your short position as "open" on the books, that means you've made potentially billions in completely untaxed income. Sure, you've made your profit, but you never fulfilled your end of the contract and so it's still "open" even as you're paying no fees and returning no stock. The best thing is, by shorting heavily, you can help facilitate the collapse of a company. You can keep shorting the stock into being worth nothing, and as long as you target the "bad" companies, the ones that are for sure going under, such as a "dying brick and mortar" store, nothing will happen to you! You get rich and you beat the taxman!

Short Squeezes
The thing with shorts though, are they have potentially infinite risk. A stock can only go down to zero, in theory there's no ceiling on how high a stock can go. Now, usually if you make a short bet and lose, you just take the loss, buy the stock, and move on… but every now and again a company can be so shorted, or its shares are held in so few hands, that you can't buy enough shares to close out of your position. Well then what? You have to entice people to buy, hence a rise in price. Everytime you fail to meet your obligations, you have to pay a fee, so you got to buy quick. Problem is the higher the price goes, the more money you lose until you close out of your position.

People keep saying GameStop "squeezed" in 2021. It only saw a sharp increase in price in 2021. The Shorts could only keep retail investors from buying more (Robinhood and other companies turning off their buy buttons for GameStop) but until they actually bought the shares to cover their short position, they weren't "squeezed".

Another problem: thanks to naked shorting they shorted more shares in GameStop then there are in existence. They genuinely couldn't buy back enough shares to cover what they owed.Literally the only way out was for GameStop to voluntarily immolate itself. It can't go bankrupt, because the sharp increase in stock price allowed it to pay off its debt, so it isn't gonna go bankrupt anytime soon, its investors were pissed when the buy button was turned off, so they can't rely on people actually selling their stock.

What's left? Well, they can only just try to bide for time. Expand their short position to lower the price of the company, and hope people get bored and sell. But they aren't selling. It costs nothing for us to just hold onto our stock. It's been 3.5 years since this whole saga began, and time? Well…

>>1854736

The GameStop saga of 2021 unfolded as a riveting spectacle, drawing global attention and sparking intense debates that transcended the realm of finance. At its core, this saga encapsulated a myriad of intricacies and controversies emblematic of modern capitalism. What began as a seemingly innocuous trading frenzy around a struggling video game retailer quickly evolved into a profound exploration of the power dynamics inherent in financial markets.

Central to the narrative was the unprecedented coordination of individual investors, primarily congregating on online platforms like Reddit's WallStreetBets. These retail traders, armed with information and fueled by collective action, challenged established norms and disrupted traditional market dynamics. Their concerted effort to drive up the price of GameStop stock, in defiance of conventional wisdom and institutional investors, underscored the potential for grassroots movements to exert significant influence in an increasingly interconnected world.

However, beneath the surface of this seemingly spontaneous uprising lay deeper questions about the nature of capitalism itself. Marxist theory provides a lens through which to dissect the GameStop phenomenon, revealing underlying tensions between capital and labor, as well as the inherent contradictions within the capitalist system. The rapid ascent of GameStop's stock price, driven not by traditional fundamentals but by speculative fervor, laid bare the speculative nature of financial markets and the disconnect between market valuations and tangible value creation.

Marxist analysis provides a critical lens through which to examine the GameStop saga, revealing the underlying contradictions and vulnerabilities of capitalist markets. At its core, Marxist theory posits that capitalism is inherently predisposed to exploitation and inequality, perpetuating systemic crises rooted in the extraction of surplus value from the labor of workers.

In the context of the GameStop saga, the concept of surplus value is particularly salient. Traditional economic theory suggests that stock prices reflect the present value of a company's expected future profits, based on factors such as earnings, growth prospects, and market sentiment. However, the rapid and dramatic rise in GameStop's stock price defied conventional valuation metrics, indicating a disconnect between market prices and underlying fundamentals.

From a Marxist perspective, this phenomenon can be interpreted as a manifestation of the inherent contradictions within capitalist markets. The surge in GameStop's stock price was driven not by the creation of tangible value through productive activity, but rather by speculative trading and market manipulation. In this scenario, capitalists (in this case, hedge funds and other institutional investors) sought to extract profits from the labor of retail investors, exacerbating existing inequalities and reinforcing class divisions.

Moreover, the GameStop saga highlighted the asymmetrical power dynamics within capitalist societies. While retail investors organized collectively to challenge established norms and disrupt traditional market dynamics, the underlying structures of capitalism remained largely intact. Institutional investors, wielding considerable financial resources and influence, ultimately retained the upper hand, demonstrating the resilience of capitalist power structures in the face of grassroots resistance.

Furthermore, the GameStop saga underscored the fragility of capitalist markets and their susceptibility to manipulation and speculative excess. As retail investors flocked to GameStop stock in pursuit of short-term gains, market volatility soared, triggering widespread repercussions across financial markets. This volatility exposed the inherent instability of capitalist systems, characterized by cycles of boom and bust, driven by speculative fervor and irrational exuberance.

In sum, the GameStop saga offers a compelling case study in the contradictions and vulnerabilities of capitalist markets, as seen through the lens of Marxist analysis. By examining the dynamics of surplus value extraction, class struggle, and systemic instability, we gain deeper insights into the structural flaws and inherent inequalities that define contemporary capitalism. As we continue to navigate the complexities of financial markets and economic systems, the lessons of GameStop serve as a poignant reminder of the urgent need to interrogate and challenge the status quo in pursuit of a more just and equitable society.

>>1854736

The GameStop phenomenon laid bare a series of contradictions inherent in capitalist structures, resonating with Marxist critiques of financial speculation, market manipulation, and the intrinsic instability of capitalist economies. Through the utilization of online platforms for coordinated collective action, individual investors confronted established power dynamics within financial markets, upending traditional hierarchies and thwarting the strategies of institutional investors.

One of the central contradictions illuminated by the GameStop saga is the disparity between the speculative nature of financial markets and the real economy. While the stock market is often portrayed as a barometer of economic health, the frenzied trading around GameStop highlighted how market valuations can diverge significantly from underlying economic fundamentals. This disjunction underscores the speculative nature of financial capitalism, where asset prices are driven not solely by productive activity but also by speculative fervor and market sentiment.

Moreover, the GameStop phenomenon exposed the vulnerabilities of institutional investors who had become complacent in their assumption of dominance within financial markets. The coordinated efforts of individual investors, facilitated by online forums like Reddit's WallStreetBets, disrupted traditional power dynamics, challenging the hegemony of institutional players and redistributing influence within the market. This grassroots uprising served as a potent reminder of the democratizing potential of digital platforms, enabling collective action and amplifying the voices of retail investors who had previously been marginalized within the financial landscape.

At the same time, the GameStop saga underscored the systemic risks inherent in speculative trading and market manipulation. The unprecedented volatility surrounding GameStop's stock price sent shockwaves through financial markets, highlighting the fragility of capitalist economies and their susceptibility to speculative bubbles and irrational exuberance. This volatility not only exposed individual investors to significant risks but also raised broader concerns about the stability of financial systems and the potential for systemic crises.

In essence, the GameStop phenomenon represents a convergence of Marxist critiques of capitalism with contemporary realities of financial markets. By revealing contradictions within capitalist structures, such as the speculative nature of financial markets, the concentration of power among institutional investors, and the inherent instability of capitalist economies, the GameStop saga serves as a potent illustration of the enduring relevance of Marxist analysis in understanding and critiquing the dynamics of contemporary capitalism. As we continue to grapple with the implications of this unprecedented event, it is clear that the legacy of GameStop will endure as a symbol of resistance against entrenched power structures and a catalyst for reimagining the future of finance.The GameStop saga serves as a stark reminder of the fallacy inherent in one of the central tenets of capitalist ideology: the belief in the efficiency and rationality of markets. Contrary to the notion that markets operate as perfectly efficient allocators of resources guided by rational decision-making, the events surrounding GameStop underscore the extent to which financial markets are susceptible to manipulation, speculation, and irrational exuberance.

At the heart of the GameStop saga was a collective frenzy driven not by objective economic fundamentals but by speculative fervor and market sentiment. Retail investors, emboldened by online communities and fueled by the prospect of quick profits, engaged in coordinated buying activity that sent GameStop's stock price skyrocketing to unprecedented levels. This speculative bubble defied conventional valuation metrics and exposed the arbitrary nature of market prices, which can be influenced by factors far removed from underlying economic realities.

Moreover, the GameStop saga laid bare the role of human psychology and herd behavior in shaping market dynamics. As retail investors piled into GameStop stock in pursuit of short-term gains, they fueled a self-reinforcing cycle of buying that drove prices ever higher. This herd mentality, fueled by social media hype and online forums, led to extreme volatility and price distortions, undermining the notion of market efficiency and rationality.

Furthermore, the pursuit of short-term gains at the expense of long-term stability and sustainability was evident throughout the GameStop saga. Institutional investors, facing substantial losses from short positions in GameStop stock, engaged in desperate tactics to stem the tide of retail buying, including restrictions on trading and media campaigns aimed at discrediting the retail investor movement. These actions underscored the inherent tensions between short-term profit motives and the broader goals of market stability and integrity.

In essence, the GameStop saga serves as a powerful critique of the belief in the efficiency and rationality of markets espoused by capitalist ideology. By exposing the susceptibility of financial markets to manipulation, speculation, and irrational exuberance, the events surrounding GameStop challenge conventional wisdom and highlight the need for a more nuanced understanding of market dynamics. As we confront the implications of this unprecedented episode, it is clear that the legacy of GameStop will endure as a cautionary tale about the limits of market rationality and the complexities of human behavior in shaping economic outcomes.

>>1854736

Short selling is a widely accepted practice in financial markets, providing investors with a mechanism to profit from declining asset prices. The process typically involves borrowing shares from a broker or other institutional investor, selling them on the open market, and then repurchasing them later at a lower price to return to the lender. In essence, short sellers are betting against the success of a particular company or asset, expecting its value to decrease over time.

While short selling serves legitimate purposes, such as providing liquidity to markets and allowing investors to hedge against downside risk, it can also be subject to abuse and manipulation. One such abuse is known as naked short selling, a practice where investors sell shares without actually borrowing them or ensuring they can be delivered on time.

Naked short selling is problematic for several reasons. Firstly, it artificially increases the supply of shares available for trading, which can exert downward pressure on stock prices, potentially leading to market distortion. This can harm long-term investors who hold positions in the targeted company, as well as destabilize the broader market.

Additionally, naked short selling undermines the integrity of the financial system by creating phantom shares that do not correspond to actual ownership rights. This can lead to failures in settlement processes and raise concerns about market manipulation and systemic risk. Moreover, naked short selling can exacerbate volatility and uncertainty, as investors may struggle to distinguish between legitimate trading activity and manipulative practices.

Regulators have sought to address the risks associated with naked short selling through various measures, including imposing restrictions on the practice and enhancing transparency requirements. However, enforcing compliance remains challenging, particularly in the era of high-frequency trading and decentralized markets.

Overall, while short selling can play a legitimate role in financial markets, naked short selling represents a clear violation of regulatory norms and market integrity. Addressing the risks associated with this practice is essential to maintaining confidence in the fairness and efficiency of financial markets.

The GameStop short squeeze exemplifies the profound conflict between retail investors and institutional players within financial markets, casting individual traders against hedge funds and other large investors in a high-stakes battle for control. At its essence, the short squeeze phenomenon unveils a fundamental imbalance of power entrenched within capitalist economies, wherein a select cadre of elites holds disproportionate sway over resource allocation and wealth distribution.

Central to the GameStop saga was the discovery that certain hedge funds had taken sizable short positions on GameStop stock, effectively betting on its decline in value. This revelation galvanized a wave of retail investors, primarily organized through online forums like Reddit's WallStreetBets, to collectively purchase GameStop shares, driving up the stock price and causing significant losses for the short sellers. This unexpected surge in demand triggered a short squeeze, where short sellers were compelled to buy back shares at inflated prices to cover their positions, further propelling the stock's ascent.

The GameStop short squeeze underscores the inherent power dynamics at play within financial markets. Institutional investors, with their vast financial resources and sophisticated trading strategies, have traditionally dominated these arenas, often leveraging their influence to shape market outcomes to their advantage. Retail investors, on the other hand, typically lack the same level of resources and access to information, relegating them to a subordinate position within the market hierarchy.

However, the GameStop saga upended this conventional power dynamic, showcasing the potential for collective action among retail investors to challenge established norms and disrupt entrenched interests. Through online platforms, individual traders were able to organize and mobilize on a scale previously unseen, leveraging the strength of their numbers to confront institutional players head-on. This grassroots uprising symbolized a rebellion against the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of a privileged few, heralding a new era of democratized participation in financial markets.

Moreover, the GameStop short squeeze laid bare the vulnerabilities of institutional investors who had grown complacent in their assumption of market dominance. The swift and coordinated actions of retail investors caught many hedge funds off guard, exposing the limitations of their trading strategies and risk management practices. This realization fueled a broader reckoning within the financial industry, prompting soul-searching and calls for greater transparency and accountability.

In essence, the GameStop saga serves as a microcosm of the broader tensions and contradictions inherent in capitalist economies. The conflict between retail investors and institutional players underscores the pervasive imbalance of power that characterizes these systems, as well as the enduring struggle for economic justice and social equity. As the dust settles from this unprecedented episode, the legacy of GameStop will endure as a testament to the transformative potential of collective action in challenging entrenched interests and reshaping the dynamics of financial markets.

>>1854736

The GameStop saga serves as a poignant reminder of the broader issues surrounding regulatory oversight and systemic risk within financial markets. Despite the presence of regulatory mechanisms intended to uphold market integrity and safeguard investors, the GameStop episode laid bare the loopholes and deficiencies within the regulatory framework, enabling market manipulators to exploit vulnerabilities and engage in predatory practices with impunity.

One of the key regulatory shortcomings highlighted by the GameStop saga is the inadequacy of existing rules governing short selling and market manipulation. While short selling itself is a legitimate investment strategy, the practice can become problematic when utilized in a predatory manner, as seen in the case of GameStop. Hedge funds and other institutional investors took advantage of regulatory gaps and leveraged their positions to drive down the price of GameStop stock, potentially harming retail investors and distorting market dynamics.

Moreover, the GameStop saga underscored the challenges of regulating decentralized and digitally-driven market activity. The coordinated actions of retail investors on social media platforms like Reddit's WallStreetBets posed unique challenges for regulators, who struggled to monitor and respond effectively to the rapid dissemination of information and trading activity. This highlights the need for regulatory bodies to adapt to the evolving landscape of online trading and social media-driven market movements, ensuring that regulatory oversight remains robust and effective in the face of technological advancements.

Additionally, the GameStop episode revealed the systemic risks inherent in interconnected financial markets. The sudden and dramatic price fluctuations in GameStop stock reverberated across broader financial markets, triggering volatility and uncertainty. This interconnectedness underscores the potential for localized disruptions to have far-reaching

In conclusion, the GameStop saga serves as a powerful lens through which to examine the inner workings of capitalist economies, illuminating the contradictions, vulnerabilities, and injustices inherent in our contemporary economic landscape. By analyzing this phenomenon through the framework of Marxist theory, we can deepen our understanding of the systemic forces driving market dynamics and the obstacles confronting efforts to forge a more equitable and sustainable economic order.

The GameStop saga underscores the fundamental tensions between capital and labor, as well as the structural inequalities perpetuated by capitalist systems. The coordinated actions of retail investors challenging entrenched interests highlight the potential for grassroots movements to disrupt established power dynamics and advocate for change. However, the episode also exposes the enduring influence of capital in shaping market outcomes and reinforcing existing hierarchies of wealth and power.

By interrogating the GameStop saga through the lens of Marxist theory, we gain insights into the systemic forces at play, including the extraction of surplus value, class struggle, and the contradictions inherent in capitalist economies. This analysis encourages us to question the assumptions of market efficiency and rationality, recognizing the role of speculative excess, market manipulation, and regulatory deficiencies in shaping economic outcomes.

As we navigate the complexities of the post-GameStop world, it is essential that we remain vigilant in our scrutiny of financial markets and hold accountable those who seek to exploit them for personal gain. This requires robust regulatory oversight, transparency, and accountability mechanisms to safeguard against market abuses and protect the interests of all stakeholders.

Moreover, the GameStop saga underscores the urgency of working towards a more just and inclusive economic system. This entails addressing systemic inequalities, promoting financial literacy and empowerment among marginalized communities, and advocating for policies that prioritize the well-being of people and the planet over the pursuit of profit.

In sum, the GameStop saga offers valuable lessons for policymakers, market participants, and society at large. By learning from this episode and embracing the insights provided by Marxist theory, we can strive towards building a more equitable, sustainable, and resilient economic order that serves the interests of all.

>>213072
CPUSAanon have you seen this video? What did you think/what is your response?

>>1854762
do you genuinely believe that GME will seriously go to the meme million numbers? I know the financial industry basically has infinite money to cough up but I'm not sure if the American economy can handle hundred of thousands more millionaires. Imo the more likely option is a Government intervention/bailout if the squeeze actually happens.

>>1854766
Also - to offer my own critique, you don't really have any proof of the 'naked short' theory do you?

Even if it was true, wouldn't the hedge funds simply buy back enough shares to close out their position over time? Which would also drive the price of Gamestock shares up rather than on the general downward trajectory they've had since 2021?

>>1854801
NTA but the 'naked short' theory is supported by the simple fact that hedge funds had simply nothing to lose since Gamestop was about to go bankrupt. Short Interest was also documented to be over three hundred percent and also the price volatility over the years has all but confirmed it in the eyes of the public. The whole point of a Short Squeeze that if investors just hold their shares, they would not be able to buy back the amount of shares they owe without the holding party's shares; creating a name your price situation.

>>1854766
I haven’t, actually. Been mostly keeping the GME stuff on the back burner. Until I checked my portfolio the other day and saw it was skyrocketing and DFV was tweeting again.

If, I’m guessing this is a “squeeze won’t happen” video, my opinion has always been that people are free to open up their short position and make some money if I’m wrong. I don’t recommend it, because if I’m right (and I pretty firmly believe I am) then they’ll wind up in a financial hole they’ll have immense trouble escaping, if at all, but the point is I’m putting my money where my mouth is. If I’m wrong I could lose thousands, and if I’m right I could make—shit, I don’t even know, hundreds of thousands? Maybe even millions? It sounds absurd but if this saga has taught me anything it’s that markets are irrational.

What did it for me though, what convinced me that this was correct, was the whole situation involving the share split-as-a-dividend. It feels like a lifetime ago, so forgive me if I get some of the details wrong, but essentially GameStop was going to use an old trick Tesla did to fight shorts—they’d issue a company dividend in the form of a stock split. Now the premise, as far as I remember, was that in a regular stock split, it’s as simple as market makers just going into their system and multiplying everything by the split amount: 1 share becomes 7, for example. However a split-via-dividend is a bit different. See shorts are required to pay any dividends from their borrowed stock to the original owner of the stock, this essentially forces naked shorts to locate stock and return it, thus driving the price up and forcing some to close their position. We got all excited waiting for the big day, and when it came and went we noticed nothing was really happening. People contacted various trading platforms, and they asked one simple question: did they process GME as a regular split, or a split via dividend.

They said they processed it as a regular split.

So people went to GameStop: did you file the forms for a regular stock split, or a split via dividend?

They said they filed a split via dividend.

So people confusingly contacted regulators and trading platforms, and a ton of these platforms said: “hang on, we’re getting told from GameStop to issue a split-via-dividend, and the DTCC to handle it as a regular split. Some Europeans saw shares disappear from their account, only to be added again later. There was mass confusion, and eventually all these different platforms said “well were just going to process this as a regular split.”

I think that was the single biggest confirmation that something was going on with this stock. Something made it stand out. Something meant it couldn’t follow the same “rules” of other stocks.

See the DTCC thing was suspected well before the stock split. You don’t technically “own” your shares when you buy them on a platform like E*Trade, instead the transaction is handled by a private company that holds them “on your behalf” as a middleman. How do you know they’re not lending out shares to market makers or saying there’s more shares of a stock then there really are? Well you don’t.

So prior to that, investors started directly registering their shares. And clearly they were doing something right because on their quarterly reports, GameStop started tracking how many investors were directly registered, even though they don’t have to and as far as I realize most other companies don’t. The number crawled higher and higher, people made a game out of showing off how many shares they’d directly registered—meaning direct ownership of your shares in your name. And eventually we reached a point where it’s become mathematically impossible for GameStop to trade as it does. Anyone who’s directly registering their shares aren’t selling, they’re going through all this paperwork and social pressure to hold shares directly in their name—yet in spite of that, the entire free floating shares would be traded over the span of one, sometimes two days. That wouldn’t just mean that all the other people directly registering their shares are selling, it would mean I’d have had to sell my shares and buy them back again too! And unless I developed Alzheimers before I’m even 30, then I know for certain I didn’t. Everyone else is saying they didn’t either.

I think retail investors have directly registered somewhere close to half the free floating shares. I can’t remember exactly where we left off, because funnily enough the number stopped increasing even as more and more people were buying hundreds of shares worth to directly register, each. Again, that convinced me something was up.

And lastly, this is more instinct than analysis, but I’ve never seen hedge funds so concerned for my financial well-being until I invested in GME. I guess they had a change of heart after throwing tons of people onto the street in 2008, because they keep telling us to sell: sell now and question later, sell before it goes to zero, whatever you do, just sell the stock! Random redditors would send DMs: “well I sure hope you sell your GameStop.” When posters began tricking bots into talking up $ASS and $CUM it was clear a lot of bots were real interested in what a bunch of retards were trading in.

I’m sorry, but it’s just easier for me to believe me and some others stumbled on a gold mine, then for me to believe Citadel Securities wants some working class shlub to make smart financial decisions. It’s Count Alucard telling me to clean my neck and visit him in his carpathian fortress—and whatever I do, don’t bring Garlic.

I’ve seen, I dunno, a hundred articles by now imploring me to forget GameStop, claiming some other stock is “the new meme stock craze.” CNBC has happily announced that short sellers have covered their position and the saga is over, only for GameStop to have another run and them to awkwardly admit short sellers lost another Billion dollars.

It might seem childish, but if the most transparently evil rich sociopaths on earth tell me not to do something, I get a strong urge to do it.

>>1854801
>Also - to offer my own critique, you don't really have any proof of the 'naked short' theory do you?


This was years ago, but I believe court/congressional documents openly said that courts had a short position multiple times larger than the free float. There's been other cases stocks where naked shorting has occurred, what makes GameStop unique was that they were caught with their pants down, panicked, and doubled down on their stupid bet. As >>1854806 said


It's like if you're driving down the highway with 10 kilos of Cocaine in your car, when you suddenly see lights and hear a siren behind you. The cops are telling you to pull over. Now are you gonna stop and spend God knows how many years in federal prison, or are you going to hit accelerate and take your chances? They chose to hit the gas and run over some pedestrians; yeah whatever punishment they face if they get caught is worse, but the fact is you'll eventually cross a point where eventually it doesn't even matter how long the jail sentence is, because you're gonna spend the rest of your life behind bars if you're caught anyways. Your best bet is to push it as hard as you can and pray to Christ that you're crazy enough to get away with it all.

Y'know that's what makes GameStop perfect. It's stupid. It's really fucking stupid. If it was, I dunno, an oil company with a few empty wells, you wouldn't see hedgies take out such an insanely large short position. An oil company can always find a new well. GameStop? It's "a dying brick and mortar". How can it compete in a world with Amazon, with streaming services, with online retailers, with game companies moving more towards virtual marketplaces and less towards physical media? It's perfect! Who gives a fuck if you're committing fraud, it's just another Toys R' Us or Blockbuster for you, it's gonna die and you'll get rich.

That is, of course, unless it doesn't, in which case you thought you had a sure bet and you fucked yourself.

>Even if it was true, wouldn't the hedge funds simply buy back enough shares to close out their position over time? Which would also drive the price of Gamestock shares up rather than on the general downward trajectory they've had since 2021?

The problem with GME investors being so irreverent is that when you talk about some technical analysis you'll sound like a crazy person. But there's a problem the shorts face. Not only did they, like I said, short more GME shares than they could ever buy back, but the higher the price goes the more money they're losing, which increases their chance of getting margin called. The lower the price goes, the more retail investors snatch up shares and directly register them, making it that much harder to exit their short position. They're caught between two moving walls: can't let the price get too high, can't let the price get too low.

Someone did some technical analysis that we jokingly refer to as "The Dorito of Doom" or sometimes "Danny Dorito". Basic premise was he seemed to have uncovered the algorithm they were using on GameStop to cause a slow bleed: keep the price on a low trajectory, slowly bleed it, let it rise only to bleed it again. It was theorized that when GME "broke" through the Dorito and stayed above/below one of the lines, it would experience a sudden, rapid acceleration either up or down. Well, the TA was essentially proven correct on Monday, pic related.

>>1854793
I don't know. None of us do. No one knows how high this thing will go. But that's part of the fun. This is a wholly unprecedented event.

Maybe the government will step in and put a cap on GME's share value. Maybe it won't. Wouldn't you like to find out, though? Maybe we'll all get rich, maybe we won't, but wouldn't you like to find out? You've got a fast car with a state-of-the-art engine, wouldn't you want to see, just once, how fast this fucker can go?

That said, the meme is "hold till you see phone numbers", but I'm not sure if it'll get to that point. Eventually the Prisoner's Dillemma will set in. I've personally held past a point where I saw I think around $70k in my portfolio (only invested ~$12k or so) and I didn't sell a share. But will I, or others, feel the same as the share prices creep up? Sure maybe I'll want to wait until it hits, I dunno, $10k a share, maybe someone else will sell at only $1k, no one knows!

You don't want to sell it all at once though, that much is clear. Once it looks like the trajectory is starting to go downwards you want to sell it piecemeal, because it could shoot up again afterwards. None of us know what the "peak" will be.

At $1k a share I'd be making $745k, that's quite a chunk of change. $10k a share would be $7.4 million; shit that would be nice to cash out, wouldn't it? If I end up seeing some millions of dollars in my account, will I hold? I don't know. I just know I won't sell everything at once.

>>1854873
Well, I dunno. Obviously you've thought about it more than I have. There's something in me that is tempted to go for some crazy stock bullshit myself but I feel like most stock hobbyists end up losing money when they go up against huge firms. If you could show me the proof of the short position being overleveraged then that would convince me more but I understand research is a pain. I guess it is pretty weird for the price to shoot up like that, there must be something going on.

The video I posted did provide some possibly-innocent ish justification for Robin Hood et al shutting off trading in GME when the big bubble happened, it was that when the customer buys a stock and pay with their credit/debit card it takes a day or two for the money to actually end up with the company and if the money isn't there they end up with nothing. So buying huge amounts of shares they fear might be worthless might leave them high and dry if all that money doesn't come in. But sure it could all be collusion. The prospect of infinite gains just strikes me as a bit unlikely though.

Oh yeah and I'm also too lazy and disorganised to play the market. Oh well. I hope you're right and best of luck to you, you can certainly come back here and celebrate if you end up being right.

>>1854886
>>1854873
Just responding again to say that we're seeing some hilariously obvious fraud here. If GME weren't a danger to some financial interests I don't think we'd be seeing this level of off-exchange trading.