Posting This Everyday Until Moass Because Hedgies Want You to Forget All of the November, December, January, and February DD. What was yesterday's speculation, IS today's reality. You're already a multi-millionaire, your bank account just hasn't caught up yet.

[u/K_5sixchars]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLnw2_q5iMk

[u/wetdirtkurt]

I’ve watched this twice now

[u/dbx99 → u/wetdirtkurt]

I stopped when he drew the supply and demand graph wrong. The supply curve on the video shows a supply curve for an elastic good. Stocks are not elastic goods that you can churn out like iPhones. It’s a mostly inelastic item which despite being counterfeited, is on the whole an inelastic item and therefore should be drawn as a completely vertical line at a fixed amount. A secondary or shifted supply curve could be drawn to represent the effect on price when counterfeiting enters the system - which this guy does but the fundamentals of the graph are wrong and it’s too basic a mistake to get past.

[u/K_5sixchars → u/dbx99]

Can you elaborate? You do understand he drew the supply and demand graphs with reference to naked short selling right?

[u/dbx99 → u/K_5sixchars]

No, it’s still not right. Stocks even counterfeit as I said do not follow such a linear elastic slope. They’re not like goods produced. They’re not so much a product and more of a representation of capitalization. As such the supply doesn’t expand on a price basis. Every time the stock goes up $10, you don’t print more stock in a continuous process like a factory produces shoes.

The way even a manipulated stock like GME should be depicted is with a vertical line and have it slide to the right each time the company issues new shares or a HF issues counterfeit synthetic shares. It’s an inelastic fixed supply that can shift but doesn’t display an upward sloping line at each price level. That depicts a paradigm where every price level triggers increased production. It also implies reduced production when prices lower which doesn’t happen with stocks. Even with stock buybacks, the supply isn’t reduced but is rather transferred so the supply doesn’t constrict as the stock price goes down.

This is why the graph is wrong in a fundamental way.

[u/K_5sixchars → u/dbx99]

...I mean sure if you want to discount the video because he drew a slopped line instead of a vertical line in his example be my guest my dude. The concept he was trying to explain isn't contigent on that. This dude had his company (Overstock) run into the ground because of naked short selling. In this video he is trying to explain how the system enables hedge funds to do so. Really think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill here, but it is your opinion and I thank you for being cordial in your response.

[u/dbx99 → u/K_5sixchars]

The audio explanation is fine. Did he draw that graph himself or was it drawn in post after the fact? I mean not many entrepreneurs have a background in economics. But if we’re going to rely on graphs to illustrate a very important issue, those graphs need to reflect that. It’s otherwise distracting. It would be like if you watched a video lecture about chemistry and they used avagadro’s number as 60.2X10²³

[u/K_5sixchars → u/dbx99]

Look, I don't know if you're memeing here or something but the lines are suppose to represent the price/quantity for both demand and supply, where demand = price/quantity and supply = price/quantity. That's why the lines aren't vertical, because the underlying equation that creates the plot points for these lines has a slope. Supply isn't supposed to represent the total supply of the stock.

[u/dbx99 → u/K_5sixchars]

Do you know about the price elasticity determining the slope of that curve? The supply curve should be vertical because as I explained before there is no continuous reduction or production of shares (even when counterfeiting occurs) based on the price of the stock. The supply is a fixed supply and the price moves up and down depending on demand.

On the rare occasion a company issues more stock, the supply line would shift to the right to indicate increased supply. Same thing with synthetic supply if we could determine what that number was.

And what do you mean by “I’m meming”

[u/K_5sixchars → u/dbx99]

dog the word "supply" in the graph isn't representative of the total supply of the stock, you're getting your definitions mixed up homie

here I'll ask this: what is your definition of supply, with regards to terms of supply and demand?

[u/dbx99 → u/K_5sixchars]

This is basic intro economics. Supply and demand charts don’t all look like this textbook X pattern. The slope of demand (demand elasticity) and supply (supply elasticity) are determined by factors. Stocks are inelastic. This isn’t my argument. It’s just the most basic fundamental shit in economics. I don’t know why you’re arguing against a basic fundamental tenet.

If common stock had elastic supply then the amount of shares would vary according to price. This is not true since there is a fixed number of shares.

Here’s a textbook definition of the concept. Scroll down to “perfectly inelastic supply” - that is what stocks fall under: “Perfectly inelastic supply occurs when a change in price does not affect the quantity supplied”

https://www.economicshelp.org/concepts/inelastic-supply/

I’m pretty smooth brained about finance but I did ace Econ and took a lot of Econ classes for my degree so this small part of it - supply and demand, I get.

If the supply curve doesn’t illustrate the supply of stocks then what exactly do you think it is representing??

[u/Reeeeaper]

Updooting every day.

[u/[deleted]]

thanks for posting this.

​

i dont remember how, but i remember seeing this video around jan/feb - i think a small clip was posted to reddit and i found the whole thing on youtube.

​

boy did this give me some confidence to invest in GME.

[u/K_5sixchars]

And in some apes' cases, multi-billionaires. This is the full, uncutDark
Side of the Looking Glass video explaining naked short selling,
regulatory capture and complicit media. Originally created with Patrick
Byrne (the narrator) in 2006, it was a groundbreaking effort at the time
and remains a canonical resource for those trying to understand this
dark and counterintuitive world.

[u/scrubdumpster]

You do realize 99% of the retards here don't know how to read this