5 ms·

>Everyone from Ted Cruz to AOC to Aaron Rodgers sided with Main Street against Wall Street. Apart from the media, of course. For example, Newsweek is calling G

>Everyone from Ted Cruz to AOC to Aaron Rodgers sided with Main Street against Wall Street. Apart from the media, of course. For example, Newsweek is calling GME investors "far-right extremists"[1] while The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots[2]. [1] - https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-extremists-use-gamestop-chaos-radicalize-recruit-telegram-1565355 https://www.newsweek.com/far-right-extremists-use-gamestop-c... [2] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys-gamestop-story-its-hedge-funds-short-sellers/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/01/30/good-guys...

freefal 6y ago
The Post article is an op-ed, not something written by the editorial board. I’d prefer that newspapers feel free to publish a wide range of views without readers ascribing those views to the paper (I.e., the newsroom or editorial board).
- harry8 6y ago
  >free to publish a wide range of views... Sure. But it's under their banner. They edit the op ed and can demand unsubstantiated claims be substantiated or removed. Otherwise it really is no better than done racist blog. A case that can't be made without facts that can't be stood up shouldn't be made in any newspaper that values it's reputation.
ignoranceprior 6y ago
Your summary of the Newsweek article is pretty misleading. They're not accusing r/WSB or GME investors as a whole of being far-right extremists (which would be false), they're referring to actual alt-righters talking about GME.
- mixedCase 6y ago
  Correct, they're opting for a guilt by association approach, if you can even call it that. Nefarious "journalism" nonetheless.
sn41 6y ago
Why "sticking to the man" resonates with me, and why I took pleasure in this incident is because students from the mid-2000s realize that hedge fund managers for the most part are not as smart as they think they are. Their bungling significantly set back the dreams of several students of my generation. I am not far right by any means, just was far gone and sad for 2010-2015. I suspect that the truth is closer to "Wall Street" than we care to admit. Insider information is still the key, not stochastic differential equations, Ito's formula and portfolio balance theories. Melvin putting all their leveraged eggs in one basket is considered above board, and is not being questioned.
- Tarq0n 6y ago
  If insider information really is key you should able to easily provide evidence for that claim. The market moving before news is announced is something that the SEC monitors and has consequences when it happens.
  - hi5eyes 6y ago
    Everyone’s seen the “consequences” like the ones Elon Musk faced after tweeting “funding secured”
  - sn41 6y ago
    "Easily" is a subjective claim. You can read the congressional testimony of Harry Markopolos from the Madoff scandal, where he explicitly says that SEC is hobbled because regulators do not have the werewithal to attend these hob-nobbing conferences. I am not in the finance industry, so my sources can only be public documents. https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=313 https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=313
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- smabie 6y ago
  Yeah I think a lot of hedge funds are run by idiots. Market making firms however, they are the true stars. There are also some really good hedge funds: RenTec, Millennium, 2 Sigma, etc. A lot of hedge funds are dinosaurs and are slowly going extinct. Even in the last 5 years there has been a big shift: investors really prefer systematic firms and raising money for a discretionary fund gets harder and harder every day. I do not believe insider information is key. If it was, hedge fund risk adjusted returns would probably be less abysmal. It's not that straightforward to evaluate hf performance, but trust me when I say, there a lot of funds out there providing very dubious value to investors.
solipsism 6y ago
People really don't seem to understand the concept of the op-ed. Maybe publications need to do a better job of making the distinction clear. For reference, this is from an article from the newsroom: But of course, what the Reddit cabal did to inflate the stock of bygone-era companies like GameStop, AMC Entertainment and Bed Bath & Beyond simply mirrored what the hedge fund sharpies had done in conspiring to “short” those same stocks and drive down the prices https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/30/financial-regulations-wall-street-sec-gamestop/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/30/financial...
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  People really don't seem to understand the concept of the op-ed. Maybe publications need to do a better job of making the distinction clear. The concept is for the editor or owner to be able publish something with plausible deniability.
hintymad 6y ago
The media’s behavior is why I became cynical about the system: moralize everything for no particular facts. You don’t like someone, label that person far-right. This is how transparency is lost. With transparency gone, so is trust. And we stopped the trade for your own good. Yeah, right.
Benjammer 6y ago
Jimmy Kimmel said "and maybe even some Russian Disruptors," for no apparent reason in his opening monologue talking about the people buying $GME last week.
- flycaliguy 6y ago
  I think unfortunately the reason is apparent, filling out a monologue.
- prepend 6y ago
  I think the problem is that anyone who likes money is now in on GME. Probably some Russian Disrupters too, but not sure why that would be joke worthy unless there’s some other detail (eg, disrupters are realizing 90% of gains or something). Personally, I think this is a smokescreen for a pretty smart invested group. I hope we eventually learn who did it just to satisfy my curiosity. If they are dumb, we will. If they are successful, we never will as the technique is too useful to use again.
fourstar 6y ago
All the focus on racism and divisiveness within the media (all the woke sjw BS) really started around after occupy Wall Street. Now why would they want that to happen? So maybe we fight with each other instead of with them and their profits?
mikeyouse 6y ago
Ted Cruz is literally married to a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs - if people think his sanctimonious Tweets were a principled stance “against Wall St” then we’re in worse shape than I thought.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
Aunche 6y ago
Of course politicians will rally behind the populist narrative. They don't care that regular people are throwing away their money buying into conspiracy theories.
hn_throwaway_99 6y ago
One of the things I really appreciate about HN is its ability to get beyond "sound-bite arguments" to really get to a deeper understanding of what can be complicated arguments. Which is why I really disliked your comment, because your primary sentence includes two lies where you take some words out of context, but hey it must be true because you provided links. 1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. 2. As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading.
- clarifier123 6y ago
  >1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. The point of the article is to associate WSB with far-right extremists. It's a common manipulation tactic, they're making them seem guilty by association. >As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading. People often say that "op-eds don't represent the official opinion of the paper", but it's provably false. There's no shortage of people who are willing to write pro-Trump op-eds, after all, almost half of the country voted for him. How come they aren't getting published in NYT, WaPo etc.? Because publishing an op-ed is a soft endorsement. It doesn't necessarily mean that they 100% agree with it, but it definitely means that they consider the opinion "acceptable".
- prepend 6y ago
  > 1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. Yes, but no. It’s called throwing shade and while it is very different from actually showing evidence on a subject and making a claim, it is intended to link the ideas in the readers mind. In middle school it would go like “I’m not saying hn_throwaway is a slut, but I did see her watching Harry Potter and also saw three other boys who say they like her at the theater that weekend.” Both statements are true, but without some other fact they don’t matter so the only reason to mention them is to make a claim without evidence. Especially since I explicitly said I’m not calling you a slut. The article linked does not act responsibly by mentioning these facts in the same article without some link. I think it’s mostly last journalism coupled with trying to click-bait get eyeballs for ads. I too like HN for our attempted critical thinking, and I like that people keep busting through different theories and trying to get to the source of truth.

freefal 6y ago

The Post article is an op-ed, not something written by the editorial board. I’d prefer that newspapers feel free to publish a wide range of views without readers ascribing those views to the paper (I.e., the newsroom or editorial board).

harry8 6y ago
>free to publish a wide range of views... Sure. But it's under their banner. They edit the op ed and can demand unsubstantiated claims be substantiated or removed. Otherwise it really is no better than done racist blog. A case that can't be made without facts that can't be stood up shouldn't be made in any newspaper that values it's reputation.

ignoranceprior 6y ago

Your summary of the Newsweek article is pretty misleading. They're not accusing r/WSB or GME investors as a whole of being far-right extremists (which would be false), they're referring to actual alt-righters talking about GME.

mixedCase 6y ago
Correct, they're opting for a guilt by association approach, if you can even call it that. Nefarious "journalism" nonetheless.

sn41 6y ago

Why "sticking to the man" resonates with me, and why I took pleasure in this incident is because students from the mid-2000s realize that hedge fund managers for the most part are not as smart as they think they are. Their bungling significantly set back the dreams of several students of my generation. I am not far right by any means, just was far gone and sad for 2010-2015. I suspect that the truth is closer to "Wall Street" than we care to admit. Insider information is still the key, not stochastic differential equations, Ito's formula and portfolio balance theories. Melvin putting all their leveraged eggs in one basket is considered above board, and is not being questioned.

Tarq0n 6y ago
If insider information really is key you should able to easily provide evidence for that claim. The market moving before news is announced is something that the SEC monitors and has consequences when it happens.
- hi5eyes 6y ago
  Everyone’s seen the “consequences” like the ones Elon Musk faced after tweeting “funding secured”
- sn41 6y ago
  "Easily" is a subjective claim. You can read the congressional testimony of Harry Markopolos from the Madoff scandal, where he explicitly says that SEC is hobbled because regulators do not have the werewithal to attend these hob-nobbing conferences. I am not in the finance industry, so my sources can only be public documents. https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=313 https://www.fraud-magazine.com/article.aspx?id=313
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
smabie 6y ago
Yeah I think a lot of hedge funds are run by idiots. Market making firms however, they are the true stars. There are also some really good hedge funds: RenTec, Millennium, 2 Sigma, etc. A lot of hedge funds are dinosaurs and are slowly going extinct. Even in the last 5 years there has been a big shift: investors really prefer systematic firms and raising money for a discretionary fund gets harder and harder every day. I do not believe insider information is key. If it was, hedge fund risk adjusted returns would probably be less abysmal. It's not that straightforward to evaluate hf performance, but trust me when I say, there a lot of funds out there providing very dubious value to investors.

solipsism 6y ago

People really don't seem to understand the concept of the op-ed. Maybe publications need to do a better job of making the distinction clear. For reference, this is from an article from the newsroom: But of course, what the Reddit cabal did to inflate the stock of bygone-era companies like GameStop, AMC Entertainment and Bed Bath & Beyond simply mirrored what the hedge fund sharpies had done in conspiring to “short” those same stocks and drive down the prices https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/30/financial-regulations-wall-street-sec-gamestop/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/01/30/financial...

goatinaboat 6y ago
People really don't seem to understand the concept of the op-ed. Maybe publications need to do a better job of making the distinction clear. The concept is for the editor or owner to be able publish something with plausible deniability.

hintymad 6y ago

The media’s behavior is why I became cynical about the system: moralize everything for no particular facts. You don’t like someone, label that person far-right. This is how transparency is lost. With transparency gone, so is trust. And we stopped the trade for your own good. Yeah, right.

Benjammer 6y ago

Jimmy Kimmel said "and maybe even some Russian Disruptors," for no apparent reason in his opening monologue talking about the people buying $GME last week.

flycaliguy 6y ago
I think unfortunately the reason is apparent, filling out a monologue.
prepend 6y ago
I think the problem is that anyone who likes money is now in on GME. Probably some Russian Disrupters too, but not sure why that would be joke worthy unless there’s some other detail (eg, disrupters are realizing 90% of gains or something). Personally, I think this is a smokescreen for a pretty smart invested group. I hope we eventually learn who did it just to satisfy my curiosity. If they are dumb, we will. If they are successful, we never will as the technique is too useful to use again.

fourstar 6y ago

All the focus on racism and divisiveness within the media (all the woke sjw BS) really started around after occupy Wall Street. Now why would they want that to happen? So maybe we fight with each other instead of with them and their profits?

mikeyouse 6y ago

Ted Cruz is literally married to a Managing Director at Goldman Sachs - if people think his sanctimonious Tweets were a principled stance “against Wall St” then we’re in worse shape than I thought.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Aunche 6y ago

Of course politicians will rally behind the populist narrative. They don't care that regular people are throwing away their money buying into conspiracy theories.

hn_throwaway_99 6y ago

One of the things I really appreciate about HN is its ability to get beyond "sound-bite arguments" to really get to a deeper understanding of what can be complicated arguments. Which is why I really disliked your comment, because your primary sentence includes two lies where you take some words out of context, but hey it must be true because you provided links. 1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. 2. As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading.

clarifier123 6y ago
>1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. The point of the article is to associate WSB with far-right extremists. It's a common manipulation tactic, they're making them seem guilty by association. >As other's have pointed out, WaPo published an Op Ed, this was not something under their Editorial Board or a news article. Saying "The Washington Post is comparing the situation to the Capitol riots" is deliberately misleading. People often say that "op-eds don't represent the official opinion of the paper", but it's provably false. There's no shortage of people who are willing to write pro-Trump op-eds, after all, almost half of the country voted for him. How come they aren't getting published in NYT, WaPo etc.? Because publishing an op-ed is a soft endorsement. It doesn't necessarily mean that they 100% agree with it, but it definitely means that they consider the opinion "acceptable".
prepend 6y ago
> 1. Going to your own link, Newsweek did not call "GME investors "far-right extremists"". The article clearly states that far-right extremists were instead using the "stick-it-to-the-man" ethos driving a lot of the GME investor chatter to recruit. There is a huge difference. Yes, but no. It’s called throwing shade and while it is very different from actually showing evidence on a subject and making a claim, it is intended to link the ideas in the readers mind. In middle school it would go like “I’m not saying hn_throwaway is a slut, but I did see her watching Harry Potter and also saw three other boys who say they like her at the theater that weekend.” Both statements are true, but without some other fact they don’t matter so the only reason to mention them is to make a claim without evidence. Especially since I explicitly said I’m not calling you a slut. The article linked does not act responsibly by mentioning these facts in the same article without some link. I think it’s mostly last journalism coupled with trying to click-bait get eyeballs for ads. I too like HN for our attempted critical thinking, and I like that people keep busting through different theories and trying to get to the source of truth.