Thoughts on Game Stop?

Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

Not disagreeing with the underlying motivation, but I’m curious what you think a progressive Treasury Secretary would do differently. Specifically.

 It should be obvious that I am not a financial guy and perhaps my desire to see a progressive in the Treasury is not the solution to this particular problem but what I would like to see is a government that that is openly hostile to hedge funds, leveraged buy outs, short selling and all of the other manipulations that the 1% use to rob the people of this country and all of the countries of the fruits of their labors.

 The problem is that whenever these big financial interests win, they get to keep all the $$.  They will tell  you how grand the market is.  But, once they get in trouble they start looking for handouts, changing the rules of the game, etc.

These incidents are a good example of how these are not like markets. Most here don't want a free market.   They want the government to intervene to help the little guy.  So, these interventions like in 2008 tend to piss people like you off.  

Me, I like markets. However, these interventions just show how the table is tilted towards these moneyed & connected interests.  

Its only when the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies lose that the government helps out. If Gamestop got shorted into oblivion, it would be a non-story and these hedge fund managers would get rich.   The reason that this would be a non-story is because that is kind of the framework. 

Our financial markets are a big casino, thanks to the fed and the federal government. And they are a rigged casino.

Klinker said:

What all of this illustrates is just how unfortunate it is that Biden was unwilling to appoint some one like Elizabeth Warren* to the Treasury.  Its great that Janet Yellen is a woman and she is undoubtedly better than Steve Munchkin but, at the end of the day, she's a team player for the status quo, a system where profit flows from human misery.

*I am aware that the balance in the Senate made it impossible for Warren personally to serve in the cabinet.

Klinker said:

nohero said:

Klinker said:

You don't think Biden was sending a message by choosing Yellen instead of a progressive? The press certainly pegged the decision that way. Market stability....yada  yada yada

 Yellen doesn't regulate the stock market. Gensler and the SEC do. 

I never suggested that she did but market stability was cited repeatedly as one of the reasons for her selection. 

I was responding based on your topic for the thread, and saying that it was relevant for assessing the choosing of Janet Yellen.  I thought the focus was on the Biden Administration's choices for regulating the markets.  I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

terp said:

Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

Not disagreeing with the underlying motivation, but I’m curious what you think a progressive Treasury Secretary would do differently. Specifically.

 It should be obvious that I am not a financial guy and perhaps my desire to see a progressive in the Treasury is not the solution to this particular problem but what I would like to see is a government that that is openly hostile to hedge funds, leveraged buy outs, short selling and all of the other manipulations that the 1% use to rob the people of this country and all of the countries of the fruits of their labors.

 The problem is that whenever these big financial interests win, they get to keep all the $$.  They will tell  you how grand the market is.  But, once they get in trouble they start looking for handouts, changing the rules of the game, etc.

These incidents are a good example of how these are not like markets. Most here don't want a free market.   They want the government to intervene to help the little guy.  So, these interventions like in 2008 tend to piss people like you off.  

Me, I like markets. However, these interventions just show how the table is tilted towards these moneyed & connected interests.  

Its only when the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies lose that the government helps out. If Gamestop got shorted into oblivion, it would be a non-story and these hedge fund managers would get rich.   The reason that this would be a non-story is because that is kind of the framework. 

Our financial markets are a big casino, thanks to the fed and the federal government. And they are a rigged casino.

 you never go the extra step - the root cause is that we allow money too much power. That's fixable.

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

Not disagreeing with the underlying motivation, but I’m curious what you think a progressive Treasury Secretary would do differently. Specifically.

 It should be obvious that I am not a financial guy and perhaps my desire to see a progressive in the Treasury is not the solution to this particular problem but what I would like to see is a government that that is openly hostile to hedge funds, leveraged buy outs, short selling and all of the other manipulations that the 1% use to rob the people of this country and all of the countries of the fruits of their labors.

 The problem is that whenever these big financial interests win, they get to keep all the $$.  They will tell  you how grand the market is.  But, once they get in trouble they start looking for handouts, changing the rules of the game, etc.

These incidents are a good example of how these are not like markets. Most here don't want a free market.   They want the government to intervene to help the little guy.  So, these interventions like in 2008 tend to piss people like you off.  

Me, I like markets. However, these interventions just show how the table is tilted towards these moneyed & connected interests.  

Its only when the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies lose that the government helps out. If Gamestop got shorted into oblivion, it would be a non-story and these hedge fund managers would get rich.   The reason that this would be a non-story is because that is kind of the framework. 

Our financial markets are a big casino, thanks to the fed and the federal government. And they are a rigged casino.

 you never go the extra step - the root cause is that we allow money too much power. That's fixable.

What do you mean that we allow money too much power. Do you mean lobbying and what have you?  

Part of the problem is too much $$ being printed.  That is a big reason there's so much leverage.  It also makes it very difficult for most to save without playing in their rigged casino. 

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

Not disagreeing with the underlying motivation, but I’m curious what you think a progressive Treasury Secretary would do differently. Specifically.

 It should be obvious that I am not a financial guy and perhaps my desire to see a progressive in the Treasury is not the solution to this particular problem but what I would like to see is a government that that is openly hostile to hedge funds, leveraged buy outs, short selling and all of the other manipulations that the 1% use to rob the people of this country and all of the countries of the fruits of their labors.

 The problem is that whenever these big financial interests win, they get to keep all the $$.  They will tell  you how grand the market is.  But, once they get in trouble they start looking for handouts, changing the rules of the game, etc.

These incidents are a good example of how these are not like markets. Most here don't want a free market.   They want the government to intervene to help the little guy.  So, these interventions like in 2008 tend to piss people like you off.  

Me, I like markets. However, these interventions just show how the table is tilted towards these moneyed & connected interests.  

Its only when the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies lose that the government helps out. If Gamestop got shorted into oblivion, it would be a non-story and these hedge fund managers would get rich.   The reason that this would be a non-story is because that is kind of the framework. 

Our financial markets are a big casino, thanks to the fed and the federal government. And they are a rigged casino.

 you never go the extra step - the root cause is that we allow money too much power. That's fixable.

What do you mean that we allow money too much power. Do you mean lobbying and what have you?  

Part of the problem is too much $$ being printed.  That is a big reason there's so much leverage.  It also makes it very difficult for most to save without playing in their rigged casino. 

What do I mean? Are you kidding me? Ever hear of Citizens United and dark money? And the revolving door between regulators and the regulated?

The problem is not the freaking printing press.

nohero said:

I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

Klinker said:

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

 Just to follow up -

On the specific topic of dealing with issues raised by the GameStop situation, there's an NPR interview this afternoon with the acting head of the SEC (Gensler will be taking over as the head).  

SEC Acting Chair Unpacks The GameStop, Reddit, Robinhood, Wall Street Debacle : NPR

Klinker said:

nohero said:

I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

 He just means you stepped away from the very narrow spectrum of thought he finds acceptable. I wouldn't take it personally. 

drummerboy said:

terp said:

drummerboy said:

terp said:

Klinker said:

jimmurphy said:

Not disagreeing with the underlying motivation, but I’m curious what you think a progressive Treasury Secretary would do differently. Specifically.

 It should be obvious that I am not a financial guy and perhaps my desire to see a progressive in the Treasury is not the solution to this particular problem but what I would like to see is a government that that is openly hostile to hedge funds, leveraged buy outs, short selling and all of the other manipulations that the 1% use to rob the people of this country and all of the countries of the fruits of their labors.

 The problem is that whenever these big financial interests win, they get to keep all the $$.  They will tell  you how grand the market is.  But, once they get in trouble they start looking for handouts, changing the rules of the game, etc.

These incidents are a good example of how these are not like markets. Most here don't want a free market.   They want the government to intervene to help the little guy.  So, these interventions like in 2008 tend to piss people like you off.  

Me, I like markets. However, these interventions just show how the table is tilted towards these moneyed & connected interests.  

Its only when the banks, the hedge funds, the insurance companies lose that the government helps out. If Gamestop got shorted into oblivion, it would be a non-story and these hedge fund managers would get rich.   The reason that this would be a non-story is because that is kind of the framework. 

Our financial markets are a big casino, thanks to the fed and the federal government. And they are a rigged casino.

 you never go the extra step - the root cause is that we allow money too much power. That's fixable.

What do you mean that we allow money too much power. Do you mean lobbying and what have you?  

Part of the problem is too much $$ being printed.  That is a big reason there's so much leverage.  It also makes it very difficult for most to save without playing in their rigged casino. 

What do I mean? Are you kidding me? Ever hear of Citizens United and dark money? And the revolving door between regulators and the regulated?

The problem is not the freaking printing press.

 Sure I have. The problem is that government is too big.  There is $$ in lobbying government and paying people off.  Construct any legal framework you like.  The rich will find a way around it because it is in their best interest.  It is also in the politicians best interest.  It's even in the beaurocrat's best interest.   This is human nature. 

The printing press allows the government to grow without limits because it hides how much the people are paying for it.  This is especially true when you have reserve currency status.  

The reason we can have never ending wars is because we have a printing press.  Could you imagine if they said that we are going to invade Iraq and we need to raise your taxes 10%?  Oh, we're going to invade Afghanistan.  Another 10%.   Hey, we'd like to muddle in the affairs of Pakisan, Yemen, Syria, Lybia.  Another 10%.   It would be completely untenable. 

terp said:

Klinker said:

nohero said:

I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

 He just means you stepped away from the very narrow spectrum of thought he finds acceptable. I wouldn't take it personally. 

 Well, you misunderstood my post, but I'm not going to take it personally (since that's a "thing" you do to everyone here)

Klinker said:

nohero said:

I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

 Not low enough!

Dennis_Seelbach said:

Klinker said:

nohero said:

I didn't realize you were going to be Terping your own thread into a general economic issues discussion.

 I'm not sure how you would talk about this without talking about the general economy.  This idea that the rich get richer and how dare the poor object is what is wrong with America.

That said, comparing me to terp is a very low blow.

 Not low enough!

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Not low enough!

 Chuckle.... Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand or is this just the sort of drive by ad hominem we've come to expect from you?

Klinker said:

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Not low enough!

 Chuckle.... Did you have anything to say about the topic at hand or is this just the sort of drive by ad hominem we've come to expect from you?

 Has anybody said anything about the "topic at hand"? You certainly have not.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

 Has anybody said anything about the "topic at hand"? You certainly have not.

 I feel bad Dennis.  The way you follow me from thread to thread, shouting insults, I  think I must have really hurt you at some point. I thought it was understood that we were all grown ups here but, if I have damaged your ego in some irreparable way, made you feel small or undermined your self confidence, I do apologize.