THREAD on Robinhood/Reddit/GME: CONGRESS is calling for action, but no one has clearly articulated what they actually want.
We could look back on this as the biggest “Pump & Dump” in history... with the little guys carrying all the water & then getting it dumped on their heads.
Short selling is absolutely legal and adds to efficiency of the market.
He’s been unsuccessfully trying to get lawmakers to focus on this for a while.
Melvin DID get crushed, but they’ve been completely out of the trade for 2 days, which means the Reddit Army’s
“STICKING IT TO THE MAN” crusade is currently sticking it to your fellow man & possibly getting yourself stuck.
When the music stops and the stocks drop, there will be a lot of pain.
ROBINHOOD proved this week that they are NOT what they promised.
The CEO was happy to announce they have the most popular app, but it’s worthless if it cannot execute trades.
Robinhood’s model was offering “free trades”
They drew in scores of individual investors & then sold that order flow to Citadel (which is both a broker/dealer AND a hedge fund - confusing).
More from Politics
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?