The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:43 pm

"I for one can be content in relatively meager circumstances and/or livable space."

Good for you. What I was saying is that contentment for me isn't a matter of economic circumstances or space.

I'm not going to get into the family thing. People get very touchy.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:42 am

dada » Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:43 pm wrote:What I was saying is that contentment for me isn't a matter of economic circumstances or space.


Plus a few other things that people actually took issue with.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Alexis Goldstein was at OWS

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 03, 2021 7:05 am

The Trouble With GameStop Is That the House Still Wins
We can’t beat Wall Street at its own zero-sum game. But we can change the rules.

By Alexis Goldstein
Ms. Goldstein is a former Wall Street professional who works at an organization that advocates financial reform.

Feb. 1, 2021
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/01/opin ... eddit.html


Last week, an alluring narrative coalesced around a band of Davids taking on the Goliaths of finance. Thousands of so-called retail traders who came together on Reddit have been using apps like Robinhood to buy stock and options of GameStop, the beleaguered video game retailer, jacking up its value some 1,700 percent last month. In the process, they’ve blown up a few hedge funds that had bet on GameStop’s failure.

The appeal of such a narrative is obvious. Wall Street profits have blasted off during the pandemic, while Main Street endures intense and prolonged suffering, a phenomenon that economists call a “K-shaped” recovery. Americans have waited 10 months and counting for consistent relief from the government. So the idea of “get rich quick” schemes, especially ones animated by a zeal for revenge against the billionaire class, are more compelling than ever. But the unfortunate irony is that this desire to stick it to the fat cats of high finance is likely only to spur higher profits for big banks and hedge funds.

The real solution to breaking the power of finance is to rebalance the recession-wracked economy. Rather than gambling on the dubious promise of more Americans gaining access to the casino, it’s time to rewrite the rules to ensure that the house doesn’t always win.

Wall Street’s edge over retail traders remains, as always, structural: superior data; sophisticated, high-frequency trading software. More important, its traders have access to “dark pools,” private exchanges where they send large orders quietly to avoid moving the market against the trade, and “over the counter” markets, where they trade with one another rather than on public exchanges. They pour money into research and rumor chasing, all in an attempt to determine the positions of their competitors.

Armed with its high-frequency trading algorithms and privileged market data, Wall Street will always win out over the thousands of people posting their positions and their plans on public message boards. These retail traders betting on GameStop’s rise may have blown up hedge funds like Melvin Capital, which lost 53 percent of its value in January after betting that GameStop’s stock would fall. But other hedge funds are likely to profit off its troubles in the long run by scooping up a stake in Melvin Capital’s future revenues in exchange for an emergency cash infusion.

One such hedge fund, Citadel LLC, further benefits from the actions of the Robinhood traders. Citadel’s market-making arm and other Wall Street institutions offer Robinhood money to execute its clients’ orders, an arrangement called “Payment for Order Flow.” (The idea was originated by Bernie Madoff in the 1980s. In 2016, the Securities and Exchange Commission questioned whether it should be banned.) Citadel then profits by trading ahead of Robinhood users. It’s possible that banks like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are also riding high on the GameStop surge, just as they did in the second quarter of the pandemic, when JPMorgan Chase saw record trading revenue because of its ability to profit from market swings.

In this way, the largest Wall Street firms run “flow trading” desks that act as middlemen. They act as both a buyer and a seller of stocks, options and other financial products, while offsetting their own risks through “hedges.” When I worked at Merrill Lynch from 2007 to 2009, the equity derivatives trading desks took in the biggest profits on the most volatile days. That’s because they are mostly agnostic to price movements, essentially making money on volume and market churn.

What this means is that trying to beat Wall Street at its own zero-sum game — one where any gain is offset by an equal-size loss — is a hopeless proposition. Instead, the solution is to fight austerity to save people from the lure of a speculative frenzy.

In a sense, the United States has seen all this before. Clinton-era welfare “reform,” along with his lowering of capital gains taxes and deregulation of the financial services industry, doubled the number of people living in extreme poverty. In the meantime, the rich pulled further ahead and helped inflate the dot-com bubble. Ahead of the 2008 crash, Wall Street banks sold borrowers “cash-out refinance” home loans, with predatory credit filling the gap left by stagnant wages. The crash decimated Black and Latino wealth, which dropped by more than half. In the wake of the 2008 crisis, research showed that gambling in the lotteries increased among those who continued to struggle financially through the recession.

Reddit and Robinhood are driving a new kind of financial lottery: trading cheap options that require giant price moves to become profitable. As further economic support remains in limbo largely because of Republican intransigence, the GameStop narrative may entice many to try their hand at the financial markets. Victor Yakovenko, a physicist at the University of Maryland, found a correlation between speculative bubbles and periods of greatest inequality. But those who tend to make the most during these bubbles are the already wealthy.

Democratizing the economy, then, involves curbing speculation and pouring national resources into lifting up Americans and rebuilding public institutions. Canceling federal student debt, which President Biden can do without Congress, would grow the economy, relieve the disproportionate debt burdens carried by Black and brown borrowers, and incentivize science and engineering graduates to consider careers benefiting the public good. A modest wealth tax could be redirected to priorities like universal child care. Lawmakers should ensure hedge funds aren’t taking advantage of regulatory blind spots to make themselves too big to fail. A very small financial transaction tax could fund investments in reducing the racial wealth gap through programs like baby bonds.

The country needs transformational policies that tackle our dire economic state. Instead, President Biden is entertaining what are most likely insufficient Republican counteroffers to his relief package, as the speculation frenzy moves on to silver.

If there’s one thing I learned on Wall Street, it’s that traders are, at their core, both self-interested and singularly devoted to the zero-sum game. Trying to mimic this with zero-sum policies that seek to supposedly “democratize” access to financial markets and “disrupt” old ways of thinking helped get us into this mess.

But bold investments in public institutions can get us out.

Alexis Goldstein (@alexisgoldstein) is a former Wall Street professional who now works at Americans for Financial Reform. She is the author of the newsletter “Markets Weekly.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:19 am

"Plus a few other things that people actually took issue with."

Maybe explain what your problem is?

I am demanding that my posts not be misunderstood by being shoved through the total thought-encompassing lens of the economic power narrative. This is so much to ask here? Then I apologize. Wrong message board.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby JackRiddler » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:09 pm

It's okay, it's okay, we're just talking here.

You dislike 99/1. You said because it reduces everything to the economic. I said it doesn't, that instead it identifies and challenges a system that reduces everything to the economic. Well or poorly, okay.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby kelley » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:41 pm

not the wrong board

maybe just not the right thread

with 'markets' in the title it shouldn't be surprising that economics would address questions of power

especially under conditions built by oligarchs etc

personal expressions of power and correlates thereof are another issue
kelley
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby Belligerent Savant » Wed Feb 03, 2021 9:21 pm

.

This can go in a few threads here. Interesting how my own views have evolved over time. I've become more of a luddite as years go by, and in particular, as I observe the carnage that Technology has wrought.

Consider me on Team Sale. It's no coincidence that his forecast, from 'way back' in 1995, was at least partially prescient:


https://www.wired.com/story/a-25-year-o ... d-society/


A 25-Year-Old Bet Comes Due: Has Tech Destroyed Society?

In 1995, a WIRED cofounder challenged a Luddite-loving doomsayer to a prescient wager on tech and civilization’s fate. Now their judge weighs in.


On March 6, 1995, WIRED’s executive editor and resident techno-optimist Kevin Kelly went to the Greenwich Village apartment of the author Kirkpatrick Sale. Kelly had asked Sale for an interview. But he planned an ambush.

Kelly had just read an early copy of Sale’s upcoming book, called Rebels Against the Future. It told the story of the 19th-century Luddites, a movement of workers opposed to the machinery of the Industrial Revolution. Before their rebellion was squashed and their leaders hanged, they literally destroyed some of the mechanized looms that they believed reduced them to cogs in a dehumanizing engine of mass production.

Sale adored the Luddites. In early 1995, Amazon was less than a year old, Apple was in the doldrums, Microsoft had yet to launch Windows 95, and almost no one had a mobile phone. But Sale, who for years had been churning out books complaining about modernity and urging a return to a subsistence economy, felt that computer technology would make life worse for humans. ...

Kelly hated Sale’s book. His reaction went beyond mere disagreement; Sale’s thesis insulted his sense of the world. So he showed up at Sale’s door not just in search of a verbal brawl but with a plan to expose what he saw as the wrongheadedness of Sale’s ideas. Kelly set up his tape recorder on a table while Sale sat behind his desk.

The visit was all business, Sale recalls. “No eats, no coffee, no particular camaraderie,” he says. Sale had prepped for the interview by reading a few issues of WIRED—he’d never heard of it before Kelly contacted him—and he expected a tough interview. He later described it as downright “hostile, no pretense of objective journalism.” (Kelly later called it adversarial, “because he was an adversary, and he probably viewed me the same way.”) They argued about the Amish, whether printing presses denuded forests, and the impact of technology on work. Sale believed it stole decent labor from people. Kelly replied that technology helped us make new things we couldn’t make any other way. “I regard that as trivial,” Sale said.

Sale believed society was on the verge of collapse. That wasn’t entirely bad, he argued. He hoped the few surviving humans would band together in small, tribal-style clusters. They wouldn’t be just off the grid. There would be no grid. Which was dandy, as far as Sale was concerned.

“History is full of civilizations that have collapsed, followed by people who have had other ways of living,” Sale said. “My optimism is based on the certainty that civilization will collapse.”

That was the opening Kelly had been waiting for. In the final pages of his Luddite book, Sale had predicted society would collapse “within not more than a few decades.” Kelly, who saw technology as an enriching force, believed the opposite—that society would flourish. Baiting his trap, Kelly asked just when Sale thought this might happen.

Sale was a bit taken aback—he’d never put a date on it. Finally, he blurted out 2020. It seemed like a good round number.


Kelly then asked how, in a quarter century, one might determine whether Sale was right.

Sale extemporaneously cited three factors: an economic disaster that would render the dollar worthless, causing a depression worse than the one in 1930; a rebellion of the poor against the monied; and a significant number of environmental catastrophes.

“Would you be willing to bet on your view?” Kelly asked.

“Sure,” Sale said.

Then Kelly sprung his trap. He had come to Sale’s apartment with a $1,000 check drawn on his joint account with his wife. Now he handed it to his startled interview subject. “I bet you $1,000 that in the year 2020, we’re not even close to the kind of disaster you describe,” he said.

Sale barely had $1,000 in his bank account. But he figured that if he lost, a thousand bucks would be worth much less in 2020 anyway. He agreed. Kelly suggested they both send their checks for safekeeping to William Patrick, the editor who had handled both Sale’s Luddite book and Kelly’s recent tome on robots and artificial life; Sale agreed.

“Oh, boy,” Kelly said after Sale wrote out the check. “This is easy money.”

Twenty-five years later, the once distant deadline is here. We are locked down. Income equality hasn’t been this bad since just before the Great Depression. California and Australia were on fire this year. We’re about to find out how easy that money is. As the time to settle approached, both men agreed that Patrick, the holder of the checks, should determine the winner on December 31. Much more than a thousand bucks was at stake: The bet was a showdown between two fiercely opposed views on the nature of progress. In a time of climate crisis, a pandemic, and predatory capitalism, is optimism about humanity’s future still justified? Kelly and Sale each represent an extreme side of the divide. For the men involved, the bet’s outcome would be a personal validation—or repudiation—of their lifelong quests.


The article is further assessed in the latest output by JM Greer:


Unfortunately Sale had his own weak spot, and Kelly targeted it with a cold ruthlessness that might have been admirable in a better cause. Like many other critics of progress then and now, Sale was convinced that industrial society could not keep pursuing endless material expansion indefinitely. A strong case can be made that he was right, but he took the further, fatal step of convincing himself that this meant industrial society would crash to ruin sometime soon. That was the weakness Kelly targeted. With the tape recorder running, he whipped out a check for $1000 and insisted that Sale place a bet on when this collapse would happen. Sale fell for the trap and made the bet. The date he chose was 2020, and of course he lost.

One point worth noting here is that Sale didn’t lose by that much. He specified three markers of collapse: an implosion in the dollar, leading to a depression worse than the 1930s; a revolt of the poor against the rich; and an unprecedented number of environmental catastrophes. He got one and a half of those, but the bet specified all three, so he lost.

This kind of bet was a standard gimmick for a while among cheerleaders of infinite progress, serving much the same role in their rhetoric that the stunts of James “The Amazing” Randi played in the debating arsenal of rationalist pseudoskeptics during the same period. The thing that fascinates me most about the gimmick is that in every case I’ve ever heard of, such bets only went one way.

Imagine, by way of a counterexample, that Sale had turned the tables. “No,” he might have said, “let’s make a different bet. You tell me when you think we’re going to get the future your magazine babbles about—fusion power, space colonies, and the rest of it. You put a date on it, and then we’ll bet a thousand dollars each and see who’s right.” If Kelly had plumped for 2020, even if he’d specified some exceedingly modest version of that future—say, at least one commercial fusion power plant putting electricity into the grid, and at least 500 human beings living full time off the Earth’s surface—Sale would be a thousand bucks richer right now.

What puts teeth into this counterexample is that in 1995, if you tried to tell the readers of Wired that a quarter century in the future, fusion power would still be an unsolved problem, manned space travel would still be limited to old-fashioned capsules atop rockets going to low Earth orbit, and so on, you’d have been jeered off the letters page. The conventional wisdom in those days insisted that by 2020 we’d surely have gotten past those baby steps toward the stars. Had Sale demanded the bet I’ve suggested, Kelly would have landed in the same awkward position that, in our timeline, he inflicted on Sale. If he refused to bet, how could he keep on insisting in public that of course all these wonderful things would happen sometime soon?


Behind this awkwardness is the most unmentionable fact of our time, the failure of progress to live up to its promises. It’s worth going back a few decades to consult the solemn predictions of qualified experts and the mass media, and compare where we were supposed to be by 2021 with where we actually are. The differences are stunning. It’s not merely that we don’t have fusion power, space colonies, or a hundred other gizmocentric fantasies that were supposed to be sure things, right on down to the hoverboards in the imaginary 2014 of Back To The Future. It’s also worth noting that here in the United States we have rates of infant mortality comparable to those in Indonesia, a level of infrastructure decay reminiscent of the last years of the Soviet Union, and a political system in the kind of advanced rigor mortis that usually precedes cataclysmic change.


https://www.ecosophia.net/the-last-years-of-progress/
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5215
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 10:58 am

"I said it doesn't, that instead it identifies and challenges a system that reduces everything to the economic"

Don't people who share the ideology that reduces everything to the economic, support this system, though? Whether rich or poor. The rich may have their heads up their asses, but lots of poor people do, too. Are all the poor people with their heads up their asses all innocent victims? Does the system force them to stick their heads up their own asses?
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby JackRiddler » Thu Feb 04, 2021 11:25 am

dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:58 am wrote:Don't people who share the ideology that reduces everything to the economic, support this system, though?


I don't know what you mean by "share the ideology"? Anti-capitalism entails being capitalist, is that it? To fight it is to be it?

Are all the poor people with their heads up their asses all innocent victims?


Obviously not. So what? Different question, different issues.

Does the system force them to stick their heads up their own asses?


Sure it does, in many ways. Though that's not the whole story.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15983
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 3:00 pm

"I don't know what you mean by "share the ideology"? Anti-capitalism entails being capitalist, is that it? To fight it is to be it?"

No, but that the 99 percent are not all anti-capitalists, obviously.

Let's say the society rewards the individuals who place their heads up their asses, and punishes those who do not. The society is oppressive, like an old testament-style god. Here the 99 percent represent the oppressive society, the one is the individual. Antisocial behavior isn't the pillaging of tbe power brokers, that's par for the course. Not erasing the individual in society, that is the antisocial behavior that invites the wrath of the social god.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:11 pm

I'm saying the situation is much more dire and immediate than the 99 percent slogan allows for. The pressures of the reward-punishment establishment do not come from the top, but from all sides at once. The peer group, the family, especially.

The individual needs society, I need society. So I'm in a relationship, an ongoing dialogue with society. It is not always pleasant. Society does not stop trying to make me conform, to adjust my attitude. And I don't stop trying to adjust society, to make it conform to my deepest wishes. The wishes of my wishes.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby kelley » Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:28 pm

society rewards sociopaths

these maniacs generally aren't oblivious or contrarians of a moderate stripe

far from it
kelley
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:07 pm

The society creates robber barons. Oligarchs don't grow in a vacuum. Remove the baron, get out the guillotines, even, I'm not going to stop you. But to stop the starving of millions, billions, the forced labor, and worse, we need a society that doesn't produce robber barons.

So I'm talking total war, basically. A twenty-four hour a day restructuring of all areas of the social order, especially family and peer dynamics.

An impossible mission, basically. The time it would take is longer than a lifetime. Means we'd have to really trust our lieutenants to get the message right when they pass it on to the trainees. Fight against the entropic law of the grapevine effect turning it into noise decay.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby kelley » Thu Feb 04, 2021 6:51 pm

it's possible every robber baron is a sociopath

but it's certain not every sociopath is a robber baron

so where to begin

unless it's with changing up the lingo again
kelley
 
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:49 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Very Few vs The Many (Rigged Markets) - Occupy 2021

Postby dada » Thu Feb 04, 2021 9:25 pm

I begin within the transgressive society, which has been around, like, forever. Always outside, challenging the boundaries of acceptability. Witches and spacemen.

The transgressive society doesn't work for a rearrangement or destruction of class society, but the total transformation of it into something virtually unrecognizable.
Last edited by dada on Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Both his words and manner of speech seemed at first totally unfamiliar to me, and yet somehow they stirred memories - as an actor might be stirred by the forgotten lines of some role he had played far away and long ago.
User avatar
dada
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:08 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests