4 ms·

the sec didnt stop gme trading.

by kryogen1c 6y ago

celticninja 6y ago
Yet, is my point. If they do then they can say "Gme is not a special case"
- creddit 6y ago
  What an insane pivot from the factual inaccuracy of “the SEC stopped GME trading.” Just admit you had no idea what you were spewing and move on.
  - celticninja 6y ago
    I won't because I understand what I said. If your reading comprehension is so poor that is the fault of your education.
- devin 6y ago
  The self-delusion required to think that any form of regulation is somehow an affront to your personal freedom is the hallmark of our broken society.
  - delaaxe 6y ago
    Regulations go against personal freedom by definition
    - baq 6y ago
      Don’t confuse freedom with anarchy
      - serf 6y ago
        serious philosophical question that i'm uneducated about -- please don't mistake it as my arguing with your statement : what is the difference between total freedom and total anarchy? Regulation seems to hurt personal choice for the sake of personal security/well-being; anarchy being a state of total non-regulation then appears to be the state that is closest to the point where personal freedom has escalated to the highest level possible. Is this balanced by the opportunity that is awarded to those in a governed state that no longer exists for the person in a state of anarchy? In other words : does the freedom of choice that a structured government gives the individual PLUS the benefits of said society (roads, medicine, whatever) ensure greater freedom of personal choice compared to the person who lives in a state of non-regulated anarchy and isn't afforded opportunity by the infrastructure -- but is uninhibited by regulation? Is there any meaningful philosophical consensus on this idea, or is it by-and-large unanswered? I'm not really in-touch with the philosophy world.
        baq 6y ago
        anarchy is just an unstable state preceding despotism. my rationale for that isn't philosophical, it's game theoretical. in anarchy, there isn't anything that can stop others from enslaving or murdering me or people I care about. actually, it's likely a positive outcome for my captors or killers. regulation and enforcement give me more freedom in the sense that opportunists exploiting their absolute freedoms go from +EV to -EV. note that the first one to eliminate opponents who employ the same strategy becomes the despot.
trollski 6y ago
which tells you things have to be _really_ bad out there. isn't that the first one that should be stopped? of course it is. but if that happens you can count positions up and then someone for sure is getting caught with pants down. and since had it been public sec wouldn't hesitate the only logical conclusion is that brokers and hedgies are in deep/existential trouble.

the sec didnt stop gme trading.

celticninja 6y ago

Yet, is my point. If they do then they can say "Gme is not a special case"

creddit 6y ago
What an insane pivot from the factual inaccuracy of “the SEC stopped GME trading.” Just admit you had no idea what you were spewing and move on.
- celticninja 6y ago
  I won't because I understand what I said. If your reading comprehension is so poor that is the fault of your education.
devin 6y ago
The self-delusion required to think that any form of regulation is somehow an affront to your personal freedom is the hallmark of our broken society.
- delaaxe 6y ago
  Regulations go against personal freedom by definition
  - baq 6y ago
    Don’t confuse freedom with anarchy
    - serf 6y ago
      serious philosophical question that i'm uneducated about -- please don't mistake it as my arguing with your statement : what is the difference between total freedom and total anarchy? Regulation seems to hurt personal choice for the sake of personal security/well-being; anarchy being a state of total non-regulation then appears to be the state that is closest to the point where personal freedom has escalated to the highest level possible. Is this balanced by the opportunity that is awarded to those in a governed state that no longer exists for the person in a state of anarchy? In other words : does the freedom of choice that a structured government gives the individual PLUS the benefits of said society (roads, medicine, whatever) ensure greater freedom of personal choice compared to the person who lives in a state of non-regulated anarchy and isn't afforded opportunity by the infrastructure -- but is uninhibited by regulation? Is there any meaningful philosophical consensus on this idea, or is it by-and-large unanswered? I'm not really in-touch with the philosophy world.
      - baq 6y ago
        anarchy is just an unstable state preceding despotism. my rationale for that isn't philosophical, it's game theoretical. in anarchy, there isn't anything that can stop others from enslaving or murdering me or people I care about. actually, it's likely a positive outcome for my captors or killers. regulation and enforcement give me more freedom in the sense that opportunists exploiting their absolute freedoms go from +EV to -EV. note that the first one to eliminate opponents who employ the same strategy becomes the despot.

trollski 6y ago

which tells you things have to be _really_ bad out there. isn't that the first one that should be stopped? of course it is. but if that happens you can count positions up and then someone for sure is getting caught with pants down. and since had it been public sec wouldn't hesitate the only logical conclusion is that brokers and hedgies are in deep/existential trouble.