It's true that today's population is complacent. Many should take another look at how flimsy the reasons were why Americans fought a war of independence.
Sadly it's more than today's population. Take for instance Wickard v. Filburn (1942), a law was upheld that prevented farmers from growing food in order to prop up food prices. An Ohio farmer was forbidden to grow wheat to feed his own livestock, not even sell it.
> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
And as awful as that logic was, the absurdity was surpassed in Gonzales v. Raich [1], when the SC leveraged Wickard to conclude that the commerce clause also allows the federal government to ban activities that could affect prices in illegal markets, too.
I’ve always thought that if the Revolution happened today, you’d have big media corporations like The NY Times writing hit pieces on George Washington everyday.
The American Revolution used the social media of the time, what do you think the federalist papers were all about?
A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”.
History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
Canada and the UK developed in the same post-American Revolution world as America itself did. The idea that the Commonwealth would have automatically become free is historical revisionism.
I didn’t said it automatically would be, but I would put my money on the west developing in a similar fashion as far as form of governments goes than not.
Considering that the West almost ended up being ruled by the Nazis, I’m not sure how this is remotely likely without the US existing as an independent powerhouse.
No, I don't like seeing winners and losers in the market. I like to see winners, it's not a zero sum game.
There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
People do like other people's drama. It reminds them they're not the only ones with troubles. As for zero sum, of course it's not, the market grows over time, but there def are winners and losers when you look at events up close.
Bending the knee is not right, there must be some sanity in the market. They're trying to protect mom and dad from losing their shirts.
Sanity is a relative term depending on which side of the trade one is on. Moms and Dads (if any were in GME) will lose money and make money, they are directing who will be losing.
I'm happy to change my phrase, what would you call it when brokerages unilaterally help their market makers by changing trading terms to ones that favor one side. Halting trading is usually done by an exchange.
> Market makers have no interest in owning the stock. They have no interest in being long or short. They're like a furniture or electronics store. They match buyers and sellers, and for this, they make a slim profit margin. This profit margin is known as the spread. The reason they make a profit is because risk is involved. If they sell stock to you, but the price is so volatile that it moves up and up before they can find a buyer and equal out their book, they can lose a lot of money, and they can lose it fast.
> This is why discount brokers (Robinhood, Cashapp, Webull, etc...) have stopped allowing people to buy GME, and AMC, among others. They can't find a market maker to take your order. It sucks because retail made a lot of dumb moves, and bought a lot of shares they shouldn't have bought, and they're going to lose a ton of money, but it's not a conspiracy. [1]
I can walk into any gas station in the country and blow as much money as I care to on lottery tickets. I can drive to Las Vegas and walk into a casino and do practically anything I want with my money. This is America and retail investors are (hopefully) all legal age and are participating of their own free will.
Hedge funds have treated the stock market like their own personal casino for decades. When the house starts to lose at their own game, due to their own greed, it's suddenly a problem?
Casino is right but you can't easily get to one. They're highly regulated and not everywhere for a reason, which is they make masses poor and are generally bad for the economy. Great you get tax money but you've destroyed people's lives to do it and people are a country's most valuable asset.
Don't know what you're on about the house losing here. Brokers make a killing on any trade action. Heavy retail day trading inevitably falters and ends up creating tons of poor while money flows into the pockets of a few. See: the year 2000.
B/c TSLA shenanigans all occurred under a completely corrupted admin whose agencies will need time to rebuild. Can't believe I need to write that. It's no secret a con man was at the helm.
Eh, there's an argument to be made that maintaining a healthy market with longs and shorts produces more value in the long term. Generally I disagree with gp tho b/c people love drama even if it isn't 100 to zero.
