Comments by "MarcosElMalo2" (@MarcosElMalo2) on "CNBC Television"
channel.
-
22
-
12
-
7
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Pelosi dropped their ask by a trillion in late summer, McConnel’s response was to drop his demand from 900 billion to 500 billion, AND THEN COULDN’T GET IT PASSED in the Senate, even though he had a majority. (You can’t blame Senate Democrats for blocking the “skinny bill” if the Senate Republicans are in disarray.)
So at this point in the negotiations (just over a month ago) , the Democrats and the Treasury Secretary negotiate a deal of 1.8 trillion. To sum up, the Dems have dropped their ask from 2.9 trillion to 2.2 trillion to 1.8 trillion, and cut out their questionable demands not directly related to COVID relief. McConnell’s response has been to offer even less, the very opposite of compromise and negotiation.
Currently, a bipartisan Senate group has negotiated a compromise of 900 billion. Pelosi is amenable. McConnell is dismissing it, but has no workable alternative to show us. To be honest, I don’t think McConnell has enough buy in from his own party, so he’s stalling.
And the Democrats are being blamed? In what hyperpartisan bizarro world are the freaking Democrats to blame for obstructing a deal? Let’s be honest here. The Republican Congressional leadership is obstructing Covid relief.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
It’s rigged, but I’m not sure if these stock market flash mobs are accomplishing anything if the big players are recouping their losses at the end of the day while many of the small investors get left holding the bag for the ones who got in early and took profits.
This asymmetric warfare, but asymmetric doesn’t always win. Revolutions don’t always succeed—indeed, they often get nipped in the bud long before they get large enough to qualify as a revolution.
What is required for the retail mob to win is coordination, coordination that might be illegal according to SEC rules. I say “might” because it needs to be tested in court to say definitively whether or not mob coordination is legal. Such a test might be too expensive for those individuals sued (civil case) or prosecuted (criminal). Lawyers with the special competence to handle SEC cases are not cheap!
However, HOWEVER, this could also be an avenue of attack to get the SEC rules changed to favor the retail investor. (More realistically, to shift a small amount of favor towards the small investor.) Successful prosecutions, David getting smashed by Goliath, gets the attention of law makers who love votes more than they love wall street money.
Going forward, I think a way to avoid SEC actions is to 1) keep everything out in the open, 2) not organize around a specific stock, although you could publicly analyze stocks, 3) use a media figure to announce targets. An example of this would be 1) & 2) the mob openly organizing into “investment clubs” and creating a tranche strategy (early, middle, late tranches, roughly) to spread out the pain and the reward. Meanwhile, they crowd research potential targets—companies that are being over-shorted, for example. 3) When a target is selected, the media personality/financial journalist/analyst goes on air to announce it.
If “investment club” sounds too cheesy, maybe a publicly traded “retail fund”, with shareholders getting to vote on targets. Or some other vehicle for the pooling of money. All out in the open, with the public announcement coming at the moment the vote is tallied. The vote would be a media event in itself.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
laron adams LOL, what is a 4th World country? You ignorant, mouth-breathing, excuse for a human being, do you not understand the schema behind 1st, 2nd, 3rd world? It’s not a ranking, you idiot. It’s a grouping of political interests dating back to the Cold War. 1st World = Western Countries, 2nd World = Communist Countries, 3rd World = those not aligned with either side. You need to examine your political rhetoric for any and all terms you use without understanding, or you’re going to get caught with your pants around your ankles the moment you start debating an adult. Heed these words, or continue being a mental lightweight, a dancing clown in the political circus. Lmao!! 😂
1
-
1
-
@spawn1086 If someone’s cupboard is bare, $600 can mean a whole lot.
On the macro scale, if people are spending that $600, especially if they spend it locally, it could keep the economy on life support just a little longer.
Regarding your other point about whether Donald Trump can or can’t write legislation, over course he can’t, but normal presidents do it all the time. They write up legislative proposals, usually in conjunction with one or both chambers, and then the two chambers hash out the details, negotiate compromises, or refuse to participate, depending.
The months of negotiations between Pelosi and Mnuchin (Mnuchin serving as Trump’s lead negotiator) were done with the good faith understanding that McConnell would back whatever Trump wanted (or McConnell could have also participated in the negotiations). It was surprising that McConnell torpedoed the negotiations when they were getting very close. But the main point here is that was an example of President Trump co-writing a bill.
I’ll give you another example. President George W Bush asked for authorization to invade Iraq. He wanted specific powers and he got them. That is the executive branch writing a bill and asking Congress to enact it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I think the Taliban leadership does want us out of their hair, but it should be recognized that the Taliban is made up of factions. The Taliban of 20 years ago was more unified, but to survive they had to become a coalition and cut deals with other groups. As a side note, this is what we fail to understand, that the taking of Kabul and the fall of the Afghan government was more of a deal-making victory than a military victory.
But now that the Taliban is in power, what does that mean? It means they have to deal with competition between their internal factions and external challenges to their power. They don’t (at least not yet) have the same level of control they had 20 years ago. The leadership in Kabul might control the airport there, but a different faction might control the airport in a different city. This complicates and delays negotiations. Countries trying to get their people out must negotiate with the leadership, but the leadership then has to negotiate with their sub-faction, which is (possibly) using foreign nationals as a bargaining chip to negotiate their own power in the government.
Yes, it’s a huge clusterfluck. But it would be a lot worse if the country was plunged into civil war, which could still happen.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1