[s1artibartfast]

How much of your money did they take? Are you one of those people that went all in on WallStreetbets?

Who should be at the gambling commissioner that allows such things? Should people be made Wards of the state and finances placed in Trump's noble stewardship?

[JumpCrisscross]

I didn’t consider that angle—thanks. I don’t day trade and don’t think anyone should. Lots of folks do anyway, however, and then they predictably lose money. It should be similarly predictable that they’ll then get upset and lash out, sometimes in the correct direction, often not.

(And the influencers pitching day trading and whatnot, lo and behold, are probably also selling the corruption of indices and why you should buy their crypto to not be a "simp" or whatnot.)

[s1artibartfast]

Mostly like I think they simply long for communal property ownership with a benevolent overseer that invests and distributes resources according to values that match their own.

Therefore they are offended that private individuals can allocate as they choose, and make losing gambles on other private institutions.

Some of these people were taught indexes are safe havens, and recoil at the idea they might not be safe as milk.

[wubbawibba]

When faced with an information asymmetry (lack of knowledge of other posters) you engage in a kind of phrenology... taking a few sentences of others and filling in huge gaps in your knowledge with biases that you cannot confirm are true and meaningful

Grammatically correct sentences you can come up with are not at all guaranteed to be accurate.

Sincerely... stop it. Get some help. You're a typical human dimwit. Your grasp of contemporary economic language is not a sign of correctness. Just your own limited vocabulary and literacy. You're repeating language you memorized. You're not solving the gap in information.

Surviving this long does not mean you are especially

[s1artibartfast]

Welcome to the human condition buddy.

Indirect realism or the distinction between noumena and phenomena does not mean a model is inaccurate, and it certaianly doesnt mean your hot take is the correct one.

[wubbawibba]

Yeah I know, patronizing random nobody. Way to go with the only option when the potential for inaccuracy is pointed out. "It might not be inaccurate!"

Real big brain stuff wrapped in copy paste of philosophical twaddle.

Not really disproving other posters point HN discourse is better than anywhere else. Random comments about others that might be wrong are not really focus on truth.

[JumpCrisscross]

> they simply long for communal property ownership with a benevolent overseer

I’m not impressed by the other account. But I respect your opinion. Why do you think they have convictions? (Versus waffling on memes.)

[s1artibartfast]

I think it is largely memes, but I think that is at the heart of the meme and why it replicates. Most of the time this is more intuitions than explicit convictions about how the world should operate.

That sombody should fix all these messy distrubted market process by replacing it with an engineered solution.

The obvious counterpoint is to direct them to who would be directing that top down system.

Everyone can get behind an omnicient and benevolent central planner on paper.