General Politics Three: But what is left/right?

[Farm Boy]

Man, I just read the article. The highest proportional funding goes to states with small populations.

But I suppose I get it. I talk with regressive flat taxers all the time. Fairs fair, pay for your own family, and whatnot. Vice taxes for schools, lotto for the working class, toll roads for the meat space workers.

There is also the logic, here, that since the funding isn't clean enough a correlation to provide value, then those proportionally less well off states would be better served to surrender thier voice at the federal table. Others will look out for them better. Now, this argument isn't new in history, the most sympathetic case I can come up with is women, but only mostly because the "single earner family" fell apart with that one*, but I find it a challenge to argue against. I could try.

*with a functional real result of less of society's total available adult attention being spent on children and family and more on cash capitalism and profit.

 

[JPetroski]

The DJT Naked Shorting story is a fascinating situation all around though. It was fun watching Charlie Gasparino of Fox News, for example, try to delicately handle the whole situation. Bear in mind for the past three years he's basically been trolling retail investors at the behest of Citadel et al and calling us idiots for stating that naked shorting exists, yet now you have the former president accusing Citadel of doing just that, so Fox basically has to choose which hand to bite. Basically, an illegal practice Gasparino has been taunting doesn't exist is being brought to the center of attention by Trump of all people.

Meanwhile, it should be fun watching Democrats who have made careers screaming about how Republicans just want to deregulate everything, have to decide if they agree with Trump that the current regulations aren't really being enforced, or say he's crazy and by default then support the men who also happen to be some of the largest donors to Republicans. Not to mention how interesting it will be to see if Republicans suddenly favor regulation now that Trump is calling for it.

This has got to be such a **** show behind closed doors and I'm loving it.

 

[Lexicus]

I mean I think my post was pretty clearly tongue in cheek,

The follow-up post says otherwise.

Man, I just read the article. The highest proportional funding goes to states with small populations.

Nowhere does the article say this.

But I suppose I get it. I talk with regressive flat taxers all the time. Fairs fair, pay for your own family, and whatnot. Vice taxes for schools, lotto for the working class, toll roads for the meat space workers.

I think we should nationalize major corporations and confiscate all individual wealth above like the first billion.

What would actually be regressive is something like: you make $30,000/year but you live in a place where the median income is $80,000/year, and since "outcomes are systemic" and "every individual dies" we're going to tax you like you make the median income

 

[JPetroski]

The follow-up post says otherwise.

Lexicus, to be blunt, I really don't want to deal with your trolling on this one. It's an interesting development. Do you have anything to add about it, or what? Do you even know what naked shorting is? Do you understand that everyday people of all walks of life and political persuasion have been trying to fight it for years now? Can you appreciate that it's weird that Trump would wind up being the politician to also fight it? I certainly think that's weird. I'm not accusing him of being altruistic LOL. He sure hasn't done anything about it until it was his stock getting the shaft, after all. Even so, go get some sunlight if a "not on my bingo card" joke leads you to call someone "dumb."

 

[Crezth]

And for the record, the reason trump is probably being the point guy on “fighting” this probably is because he has to at least pretend to listen to the people, and he is certainly the only president in my lifetime to have been elected on the basis of populism and not simply institutional capture by the elite parties.

 

[JPetroski]

And for the record, the reason trump is probably being the point guy on “fighting” this probably is because he has to at least pretend to listen to the people, and he is certainly the only president in my lifetime to have been elected on the basis of populism and not simply institutional capture by the elite parties.

It's an "If Hitler invaded hell moment," I'm sure, for a number of liberal Apes, but they'll take it.

 

[Broken_Erika]

And for the record, the reason trump is probably being the point guy on “fighting” this probably is because he has to at least pretend to listen to the people, and he is certainly the only president in my lifetime to have been elected on the basis of populism and not simply institutional capture by the elite parties.

And that populism elected Trump. There's no escaping the downward spiral.

 

[Gorbles]

Lexicus, to be blunt, I really don't want to deal with your trolling on this one.

Because that's how you know you have a point

And for the record, the reason trump is probably being the point guy on “fighting” this probably is because he has to at least pretend to listen to the people, and he is certainly the only president in my lifetime to have been elected on the basis of populism and not simply institutional capture by the elite parties.

Populism as a platform wouldn't exist without the perception of the elite. Not really interested in bigging up what is essentially a reactionary pushback to the failures of liberal capitalism. But I'm sure you have a point beyond this rhetoric?

 

[Lexicus]

Lexicus, to be blunt, I really don't want to deal with your trolling on this one.

I'm not trolling, you are, as evidenced by your "i was joking bro" retort and even more by this phrase:

liberal Apes

Do you have anything to add about it, or what?

Not really, no. I don't care very much about the issue of naked shorting. There is no such thing as a "fair" or "free" stock market, it's just a venue for people to scam each other.

he is certainly the only president in my lifetime to have been elected on the basis of populism and not simply institutional capture by the elite parties.

Lol, lmao

 

[Cutlass]

The point of democratic governance is to promote a rough innate equity between people, right? Do the top five there show suffering in real terms from thier lack of control over the government? Do the bottom five seem to proportionally have too much? Does DC need more?

I think "chill" doesn't conflict, btw.

Yes. Yes. Yes. yes.

 

[JPetroski]

I'm not trolling, you are, as evidenced by your "i was joking bro" retort and even more by this phrase:

An ape is an investor in AMC or GameStop - not a derogatory term about liberals FYI, though to be fair I could see why if you didn't know that you'd think I'm trolling.

Not really, no. I don't care very much about the issue of naked shorting. There is no such thing as a "fair" or "free" stock market, it's just a venue for people to scam each other.

Perhaps you shouldn't take shots at folks about things you don't know anything about? Though you should very much care about the issue of naked shorting, as it is one of the main (illegal) methods by which scammers scam.

 

[Lexicus]

An ape is an investor in AMC or GameStop - not a derogatory term about liberals FYI, though to be fair I could see why if you didn't know that you'd think I'm trolling.

No, I do know what it means, and that's why I think you're trolling. You don't care about market fairness, you just made a bad investment but don't want to accept the consequences of having done so.

Perhaps you shouldn't take shots at folks about things you don't know anything about? Though you should very much care about the issue of naked shorting, as it is one of the main (illegal) methods by which scammers scam.

I do know anything about it, but knowing and caring very much are two different things.

 

[Farm Boy]

Yes. Yes. Yes. yes.

There are always people who want to live in the nice house bad enough.

 

[JPetroski]

You don't care about market fairness, you just made a bad investment but don't want to accept the consequences of having done so.

Yes, so we've been told, repeatedly, sometimes via as many as 3-4 articles a day by various publications (many with large ownership stakes by the hedge funds), an absolute army of bots copying and pasting the same stuff, and as many paid shills as possible. Really, it's been a gargantuan effort to tell us all how bad we called that one. Can't imagine how much money they're spending to get little old me to sell before it all goes to zero. Bless their hearts.

Still, with 11 earnings beats in a row, an expanded business model to include distribution rights, a major stake in one of the largest gold/silver mines in the country, proprietary popcorn and candy lines sold in stores, a significant merchandise arm, a staunch fanbase and many amazing films due out between now, really, and 2026, I think the jury's still out on just how bad of an investment that was, especially since we've all been given ample time to average down to a point where we're not that far out of the green. True, there's the problematic 2026 debt to handle so we aren't quite out of the woods yet, but I like my chances, thank you.

The entire thesis behind which apes are involved in these plays is that the market is inherently unfair, that it is a conflict of interest for Citadel and others to have both a market maker and hedge fund business arm directly helping the other, and, frankly, that these stocks were massively naked shorted in an exceptionally predatory manner as said hedge funds felt it was a no brainer they'd go out of business during COVID. Since that time, we've seen market makers lie under oath to Congress, warehouses mysteriously catch fire on the eve of RICO investigations, outrageously skewed buy/sell imbalances, dark pool percentages entirely beyond the pale of an enormity on these plays that is insane compared to any normal ticker, the rushed acquisition of SAYS Technology (which offered a legitimate avenue to a share count) by RobinHood of all entities in the midst of AMC utilizing it (and, by the way, solid polling science suggesting the float was sold at least 2.5 times over at that point), lawsuits over the CAT system, tokenized stock scandals from FTX claiming a 1:1 backing with the meme stocks, etc. etc. etc. etc.

Now, could I honestly say any of that is the reason I got into the play? Of course not. But all that baloney is the reason I've stayed in over the years and averaged down. So, frankly, I've put real money behind my mouth and tried to help do something about it.

Anyway, it is a BIG deal that this is starting to get air time from Trump, though with everyone involved behind the scenes, I can't believe he'll latch on for the long haul. Can't be good for business.

But honestly, the most interesting part of this exchange Lexicus is you've got a Republican on the hook complaining about wealthy elites and explaining why they're crooks, and you're spending your time trying to convince him he's still a jerk

 

[Cutlass]

There are always people who want to live in the nice house bad enough.

And there are always people who just want to take the nice house away from others, because they think others don't deserve nice things.

This is why the money in America supports the Republicans. And is spent to get rural working people and poor to make themselves poorer.

 

[Lexicus]

But honestly, the most interesting part of this exchange Lexicus is you've got a Republican on the hook complaining about wealthy elites and explaining why they're crooks, and you're spending your time trying to convince him he's still a jerk

My comrade Crezth seems to prefer right-wing anticapitalists to clueless libs. My preference is quite the opposite.

Anyway, very illuminating post all in all.

 

[Farm Boy]

And there are always people who just want to take the nice house away from others, because they think others don't deserve nice things.

This is why the money in America supports the Republicans. And is spent to get rural working people and poor to make themselves poorer.

 

[Hygro]

We could give everyone votes inverse to their wealth or give pluses for measured expected marginalization....

 

[Farm Boy]

Ok, Lex. Trying to be gracious in alternative readings of the funding map.

Federal input, but my rough eye, seems to scale with senators and resource extraction. Seeing as Americans subsidize thier resource consumption, this makes sense that government money would follow it. There's development of oil, we're an exporter now, mind, in Alaska and North Dakota. New infrastructure. The great plains, particularly the dry plains, export less dense value than oil, the infrastructure for beef and grains was laid decades ago. Then underfunded, if you look at the bridges*. So those federal input gaps make sense, too. But they could go lower, like Alabama.

Also, I've gotta say, it gets a bit old having the borders pointed out as man made constructions. Of course they are. They're demarcations of governance and man made rules. This is a line where the accord changes. If we're going to talk about government like it's a real thing, then states are a real thing! Hundreds of years of accord and discord.

*seeing as they export agricultural value and receive back low investment, and all equations must ultimately balance, I'd guess they're exporting the Ogallala.

 

[Crezth]

And that populism elected Trump. There's no escaping the downward spiral.

Indeed. It turns out the small business pigs who run the country do actually only care about their own money. That’s the “populace” for you. The rest of us are, well, losers, innit?

Lol, lmao

Kind of sad, isn’t it? I understand why you have to laugh.