I'm seeing a sudden spike in posts trying to push for the SEC to intervene. This is pretty sus to me. First of all, flooding the sub with a unified talking point is the playbook that shills use as part of their propaganda strategy. We've seen it before from topics ranging from pump and dumps with silver and other stocks, to when they try to foment divisiveness based on popular users, to stupid shit like trying to scare us with taxes. The shills, HFs, and whatever PR firm they might have hired are so obvious with their message bombing campaigns that any time I see an unnatural rise in one particular topic I am sus of the intent of that messaging.
Secondly, this push to try to force the SEC's hand, through hashtagging or whatever, has the same tone of urgency that shills also employ. It reminds me of the "must act now" posts to bombard the SEC with comments regarding proposed rule changes that only acted to delay the review of those rules. This campaign seems the same in that it is urgently pushing apes to act regarding something that they really don't know a lot about with unforeseen consequences.
And what are those unforeseen consequences? Well, what do you think would happen if the SEC did intervene? I fear that it would result in a halting of the MOASS that would not benefit retail investors.
I've done research on historical short squeezes, runs on the market and market crashes. In the overwhelming amount of cases, short squeezes and runs on the market, even to the extent that the market crashed, were allowed to play out without government or regulatory intervention. Action only came after the fact and usually resulted in efforts to increase funds to cover the obligations and debts from the squeeze or market crash.
In other words, the free market was allowed to operate and prevail. That is what retail investors want in the case of a MOASS. The Shorts need to pay the price for their actions and that price needs to be determined by the market price that the holders of the stock dictate.
Take a look at this FINRA page describing market interventions through history: https://www.finra.org/investors/insights/cushion-crash-market-interventions-through-history
Time and time again, the market has not been interfered with and short squeezes and even market crashes have been allowed to play out with intervention only coming after the fact.
In March of 2020 the NYS... keep reading on reddit ➡
And then we have SEC who sued Ripple for selling an "unregistered security". Why aren't the SEC suing the banks and the government for the bailouts, especially when these are the big banks that don't need them? Oh wait, SEC is part of the government.
When you hear about some criminal with a stolen suitcase of cash no one cares. Meanwhile, talk about carrying stolen bitcoin and monero and now people hates crypto for money laundering, and the government works extra hard to crack down and put regulations whenever possible. It's a double standard. And they let the banks launder $2T a year.
The government is fucked.
I was always under the impression this was something between the employer and the employee. I am unionized, salaried worker with paid sick days in my contract. I have worked a lot of jobs before my current one where I didn’t have any paid sick days. My mother had paid sick days when I was growing up, and my dad did not. This was because of the nature of their jobs and who their employer was. Is everyone asking that the government pay for the sick days, or that the government legislate that the employer has to provide paid sick days? I think passing a law to make employers provide some paid sick days would be more productive than making the government do it. I am in 100% support of everyone having paid sick days, but I don’t understand the current goal or what is being asked of the current government.
Edit: I think the fear of being downvoted prevents a lot of people from asking their questions on here. And I got immediately downvoted for asking a genuine question. This is a chance to sway an undecided voter one way or the other. I’m seeking more info, so if you hate my question, at least tell me why I’m wrong.
So I'm a huge advocate of something known as sortition, where people are randomly selected to serve in a legislature. Unfortunately the typical gut reaction against sortition is bewilderment and skepticism. How could we possibly trust ignorant, stupid, normal people to become our leaders?
Imagine a Congress that actually looks like America. It's filled with nurses, farmers, engineers, waitresses, teachers, accountants, pastors, soldiers, stay-at-home-parents, and retirees. They are conservatives, liberals, and moderates from all parts of the country and all walks of life.
For a contemporary implementation, a lottery is used to draw around 100 to 1000 people to form one house of a Congress. Service is voluntary and for a fixed term. To alleviate the problem of rational ignorance, chosen members could be trained by experts or even given an entire elite university education before service. Because of random sampling, a sortition Citizens' Assembly would have superior diversity in every conceivable dimension compared to any elected system. Sortition is also the ultimate method of creating a proportionally representative Congress.
Democratic lotteries are an ancient idea whose usage is first recorded in ancient Athens in 6th century BC. Athens was most famous for its People's Assembly, in which any citizen could participate (and was paid to participate) in direct democracy. However, the Athenians also invented several additional institutions as checks and balances on the passions of the People's Assembly.
Athenian democracy was regarded by Aristotle as a “radical democracy”, a state which... keep reading on reddit ➡
I am from Australia and it seems our government is openly corrupt with scandal after scandal but nothing seems to be done, the U.S had 4 years of their fiasco, china seems to be doing whatever it wants with no ramifications, I am just feeling mentally drained
TLDR: The USD is the reserve currency of the world for a reason. To make global investors lose all confidence in the US market is nothing short of self-destruction and would lead to a lot more than just the collapse of the stock market.
After the posting of u/atobitt's HOC DD, as a result of it implicating practically the entire stock market, its owners and regulators, a lot of apes have had their faith shaken and doubts have arisen, some reasonable, some unreasonable. This has given shills an easy opportunity to stir up FUD within the ape troop, so I wanted to make a post to put your fears to rest, specifically about the nigh impossibility of the United States government stepping in to bail out shorts from having to cover.
A common piece of FUD being circulated right now is that the government is more likely to preserve the status quo of the current stock market and wealth distribution than it is to allow the covering of shorts and to allow huge upheavals in society. While initially appearing as a legitimate concern, this scenario is impossible precisely because saving the shorts (in forms other than a cash bailout because in that scenario GME holders still get paid) would have even more drastic consequences than even what could be the largest redistribution of wealth in history. That is because an intervention here carries the very real possibility of what is essentially the destruction of the United States of America as you know it.
Huge sections of the government, regardless of party and especially those with ties to the financial system and the stock market, are corrupt. Wall Street is corrupt and exerts huge control on the government. Many, if not all of the financial regulators are corrupt, and in the deep, deep pockets of Wall Street, and together with the government form a sort of huge corrupt cabal of money laundering and upward wealth movement. However, EVEN THOUGH Wall Street is capable of exerting extreme pressure on the government, EVEN THOUGH Wall Street can ask for itself to be bailed out time and time again, the United States Government is helpless to intervene and save hedge funds this time, even if it wanted to, for the obvious reason that to do so would be self destruction, plain and simple. An intervention on behalf of hedge funds that allow them to exit their positions at little cost would unambiguously destroy all trust in the stock market, this much is obvious to anyone. However, the counterpoint has been rais... keep reading on reddit ➡