![How stocks work these days [640x809 - 54KB]](https://pic8.co/sh/PrX6fa.jpg){kind=link}
The real story here is the markets are no longer a vehicle for class mobility or income growth if you are poor or lower-middle class, even supposing you make the right moves.
Hypothetically, in a functioning, non-manipulated market, even a pittance invested properly by some broke sonofabitch, should see some modest yield. But thats not the case any more.
And GME merely existed to highlight this very phenomenon. That making the correct moves, as people are constantly exorciated for "failing to invest smartly", as in "like the big guys do", is shown to be a farce on the larger scale.
Why?
Because the minute the bluff is called, we get to see what the market is actually about:
Gatekeeping the 'poors' from the very game that wallstreets corporate-welfare socialists rigged to benefit themselves while robbing mainstreet.
I also don't think it should be legal to crowd source market manipulation like certain power users on wsb have been able to do.
I think it absolutely should be legal as long as congress is allowed to commit insider trading and the hedges are allowed to automate shorting and use dark pools.
There is either one standard, or there should be none.
in the market every paycheck and forgets about it.
The problem with that take is a day trader is assumed to be paying attention and learning about the market, whereas you're saying putting money away and forgetting it is what they should have done, no?
But that presupposes that not paying attention to the market is the way to go.
So then, and forgive me if I seem to be putting you on the spot, but, which is it?
Due diligence or no?
And thats how I see it, a false dilemma. Because be it day trading and paying attention or stocking it away, to incompetently be eaten by inflation, any success of the GME variety, would see the same outcome: circling the wagons and kicking out everyone whos not an insider. And the proof of that is that it already happened. It makes no difference that it was just one example, when the example was of the scale that it was. The past is the best predictor of the future.
To address what you wrote about gate keeping 'poors' from the market, would take more time than I have today to be on the internet.
I can't accept that as an argument, but in all sincerity you sound like you understand the topic a lot better than me, so I'd be glad to take a raincheck on the lesson if you're willing.
(post is archived)