acover

29 ms·

301.
by acover 6y ago
Not really. When a corp has billions in revenue, your $2000 is nothing compared to any possibility of jeopardizing a fraction of their revenue. Imagine a corp optimizing click through. Any negative news could dampen that and require immedia
302.
by acover 6y ago
> only people that really need it would get it I think this is where we disagree. If wealth was equally distributed I would agree but wealth follows a power law distribution. People with a 1000x less money than me but with 100x more ris
303.
by acover 6y ago
The supply constraints for the vaccine are short term. > Canada is burning billions because it has decided to prioritize COVID protection above everything else in life. It was clear from the beginning that lockdowns were a bad idea becau
304.
by acover 6y ago
I agree that price controls create shortages in the long term. The issue is that emergencies are about the short term. I would be very surprised if more money would have helped produce more vaccines. Canada is burning a billion a day to kee
305.
by acover 6y ago
I don't think this is true. In emergencies we explicitly do not allow price gouging because it just doesn't work. If it was a free market then the vaccine would cost 10k and few of those who benefit most would get it. That's
306.
by acover 6y ago
I disagree. They are for congress writing detailed laws for every environmental issue. They need to show that congress is capable of that.
307.
by acover 6y ago
Why can't congress delegate implementation to an agency? Congress can always override the agency if needed. If you think congress is incapable of oversight then you are just for complete deregulation.
308.
by acover 6y ago
I'm not an expert but there is data for your question. They don't have 0 value. Tesla's usually still have above 90% capacity at 250,000 km [0]. That's still a usable car. Further tesla has stated old car batteries are s
309.
by acover 6y ago
Note that is the short interest ratio which is different than short interest. Your link shows no data available for short interest.
310.
by acover 6y ago
Couldn't those with shorts buy otm calls to hedge the possibility of a squeeze?
311.
by acover 6y ago
Note that the comment I replied to introduced the idea of treating wallstreetbets as a single hedge fund. > if WallStreetBets was incorporated into a hedge fund and took a huge long position is that market manipulation? So your main poin
312.
by acover 6y ago
Let's say you are buying an option contract on an exchange. You don't know who is selling to you and whether they can actually pay you when the time comes. In order to solve this issue, intermediates act as a guarantor of all tran
313.
by acover 6y ago
> I don’t know how you can argue this in good faith I'm not an expert and am rather dumb. What do you think the differences are? Differences: * One hedge fund versus a multitude of investors * Owning all the securities vs only a por
314.
by acover 6y ago
If wallstreetbets was a hedge fund and they bought all of GME to cause a short squeeze then that is market manipulation - this has been settled [0]. [0] - https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2013-159 Edit: liti
315.
by acover 6y ago
The issue isn't GME market cap vs the S&P 500. It's that the clearing houses, exchanges and other intermediaries that guarantee every trade may go bankrupt due to the $15+ billion loss on options that they may have to cover.
316.
by acover 6y ago
I don't understand your question. If settlement was instantaneous then to sell a stock on an exchange you'd have to have the stock. To buy you'd have to have cash. Currently market makers don't have either.
317.
by acover 6y ago
I'm not an expert but how I read it is: market makers currently can sell a stock without owning it. All is well as long as they buy it back by the end of the day as settlement takes 2 more days. If settlement was instantaneous then the
318.
by acover 6y ago
> A substantial amount of trades in the market are executed by liquidity providers that provide efficient two-sided markets. These important trading firms trade on both sides of the market and are largely risk flat at the end of the da
319.
by acover 6y ago
Wouldn't making settlement sub 1 minute solve the issue?
320.
by acover 6y ago
Forgive me I don't know a lot about this. I think he is talking about protecting intermediaries like the clearing houses and the exchanges themselves. The exchanges only work if counter party risk doesn't exist. To solve this, the
321.
by acover 6y ago
Aren't there minority shareholder rights, which give you the right to sue if they do something against your interest?
322.
by acover 6y ago
Interesting. Spacex says it's 5 years for the 550km orbit without propulsion. Maybe the orbit isn't perfectly circular or something else changes the maths. wiki citation - https://spacenews.com/starlink-failures-hi
323.
by acover 6y ago
The orbits have a 5 year life span and the satellites can deorbit. The satellites actually use propulsion to stay in their orbit! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink
324.
by acover 6y ago
Interesting, then I'm not sure why I've been banned.
325.
by acover 6y ago
I have been permanently banned from Facebook for using an incorrect birthday :/ Uploaded government id, correct information, phone number but I'm no longer allowed to create an account.
326.
by acover 6y ago
The purpose of QE is to cause inflation, the federal reserve is explicitly trying to avoid a Japan situation where there are low interest rates and deflation [0]. To avoid a deflationary spiral [1]. I can't find a source that explains
327.
by acover 6y ago
The reserve requirement is 0%, increasing a bank's reserves doesn't allow them to lend more. There are mechanisms that allow an increase in bank reserves to be spent in the economy without loans [0]. [0] https://positiv
328.
by acover 6y ago
> A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other financial institutions, thus raising the prices of those financial assets and lowering their yield, while simultaneously increasin
329.
by acover 6y ago
I think quantiative easing added trillions of dollars during covid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing
330.
by acover 6y ago
Laws around unionization already exist.

More ›