The SEC really should look into the GameStop market-rigging, because this is shockingly blatant from Citadel, which is likely both market-making and doing side bets. The Reddit story is true and fun, but also a convenient cover.
Apparently at 1:32pm, a 587k shares of GameStop traded at $327 a share, which is $187 million. That's not coming from Robinhood. Wall Street is on both sides of this battle.
Ugly stuff.
Here's what's likely happening. Robinhood takes market orders where Redditers say they want to buy stock at 'the market price.' RH sells orders to Citadel. Citadel sees the orders, makes side bets on options. Citadel then sets an arbitrary 'market price' to cash in on options.
There are likely insiders in the Reddit forums talking up the stock. People like @elonmusk and @chamath may know of the market-rigging and cheer it on. There's a group of insiders seeing overexposed hedge funds shorting GameStop and rigging the market to kill them.
Here's a key piece of evidence that the stock isn't being run up by Redditers.
Good thread, though I would note that the other problem with the Obama WH on financial regulation was the lie that they sought to stop foreclosures instead of encourage them. Barr was knee deep in that horrific dishonesty, but it's not like any progressives were honest either.
Fundamentally the trade during the Obama era was to steal all middle class savings and create a new class of untouchable billionaires and lie about it, in return for an irrelevant consumer protection agency.
That was a bad trade and it's one few will acknowledge, even today.
Well, not all, but a lot of it. Obama had the chance to reorient the American political order towards a democracy. Instead of doing that, he orchestrated a plutocracy, and lied about it. Barr was a point person here. But progressives still haven't reckoned with it.
There's no better way to destroy the idea of free speech than to pretend that the borderless sociopathic communication systems we have now are some beautiful paragon of an open society free from censorship.
This is not an argument for free speech or against censorship, it's an argument that all media and communication systems should be controlled by uncaring distant pools of capital. It's sociopathy dressed up with footnotes.
Community standards are public abridgments on speech, so arguing that we should have no public abridgments on speech is an argument against all community standards. That is not free speech, it's just sociopathy.
1. As @ZephyrTeachout notes, there is now a big opportunity to take on monopolies. Biden has picked an acting Antitrust chief, Gene Kimmelman, and an acting FTC Chair, @RKSlaughterFTC.
2. Everyone in these positions always say they will be tough on monopolies and big tech. That's not meaningful. There are two questions. One, what is their view of the point of antitrust? To enhance economic efficiency (aka 'consumer welfare')? Or protect us from big business?
3. Kimmelman is generally a consumer welfare advocate, and he supported the DOJ under Obama suing book publishers on behalf of Amazon because supporting Amazon's monopoly would lower consumer prices. It's possible he has rethought his approach.
The Chinese government just sent a very aggressive message to Biden-world, saying officials who pursue a policy framework averse to the PRC will have trouble earning money from most American corporations after they leave the administration.
The Chinese government totally recognizes the weakness of American politics. The PRC is saying no revolving door corruption unless you do our bidding. It's the single best argument for anti-corruption measures I've ever seen. China just passed H.R. 1.
I've been pushing for a complete disentangling of the Chinese and American economies, which sounds hardline or incredibly difficult, at first. But the Chinese gov't keeps making my case.
“The number of cases where there is just one – often fragile – supplier is staggering. This is a deterioration from a decade ago when 3 to 5 suppliers existed for each component, let alone several decades ago when the military generally enjoyed dozens of suppliers for each item.”
The Defense Department is now also pointing out that Wall Street is a huge national security problem, as is what the Pentagon calls a "radical vision of free trade without fair trade enforcement."
Alex Jones doesn't need to be censored, but he doesn't need to be recommended to YouTube viewers 15 billion times. That's the issue, it's the targeted ad model of big tech that turns dangerous cranks - who exist in every culture - into superstars.
The idea that a small group of English-speaking Silicon Valley titans can control speech while running radicalization engines is simply ludicrous. Even if they can do it in the U.S., what about all the conspiracy theories and danger in every other non-Western non-English nation?
The reason all these media and big tech execs want censorship is because it's the only path that preserves their revenue and social position. It doesn't address the problem, which is *their own business model* radicalizing millions and ruining our minds.