DeepSeek just proved Lina Khan right
Khan warned that enabling protectionism for tech monopolies wouldn’t just hurt all of us, it would hurt them too. Now they’re getting wiped out.
You're viewing a single thread.
Man, the hysterical, unhinged US market just has no chill.
Someone came up with a better chatbot-- "OMG, superintelligence is here and is inevitable, all hail our robot overlords and their broligarch creators!"
Somebody outside the US had an idea to train a chatbot for cheaper-- "OMG, US tech is doomed, they have no recourse against this and all the hardware is now worthless!"
Maybe if the markets weren't constantly freaking the hell out about any semblance of technological innovation in search for the next Google or Apple they woldn't have to deflate like a balloon each time reality sets in.
Their unhinged need for growth/metastasis to to feed their ego scores is unquenchable and ending the world.
It's tragic we won't physically stop them via revolution. We are cowards that mistake this quiet slaughter for peace. The planet will have to do it for us, and take us and a lot of innocent surface life with them.
You... may not have been following the news for the past couple of years.
Doesn't quite look like "quiet death mistaken for peace" out there, and it seems like the world destroying is very much being done with guns, as per usual.
Endless capitalist growth and wealth accumulation is still bad, though, don't get me wrong, and oligarchy is, as always, tied to all the rest of it. That's just a bit of a reductionist take.
The market's chronic convulsive disorder is, imo, an inefficient pricing problem. Price discovery doesn't really exist, most of the trading volume is "off-exchange" and market makers have severe unchecked moral hazards in how they do business.
The underlying value of publicly traded companies simply does not change as fast as this. Regardless of what you might say about the speed at which the market reacts to new information. In a world where the media openly and solely serves the interests of billionaires and a small outfit like Wall Street On Parade is routinely censored on socials, there's no reason to believe anything you're ever told by the news about any moves in the market.
Stock investing isn't about underlying value. The company itself is almost irrelevant. Stock investing is about predicting stock investor sentiment.
That's not a traditional view of investing or the manner in which securities are built to be valued, but it is admittedly the modal paradigm to which we are subject.
Which is why NFTs work. They're refreshingly honest: They represent nothing of any kind of value, yet are valued. Something something fetishism.
A part of me loved the idea of decentralized finance (punk as fuck if it hurts centralized finance) and was rooting for NFTs if they were going to be used to restore ownership rights for digital property but... That's not what happened. It's all grift.
There's something to be said that bitcoin and other crypto like it have no intrinsic value but can represent value we give and be used as a decentralized form of currency not controlled by one entity. It's not how it's used, but there's an argument for it.
NFTs were a shitty cash grab because showing you have the token that you "own" a thing, regardless of what it is, only matters if there is some kind of enforcement. It had nothing to do with rights for property and anyone could copy your crappy generated image as many times as they wanted. You can't do that with bitcoin.
Fancy word foot work for "speculation"
Fancy way of saying "gambling"
Certainly. But very few people really do value investing anymore. Even professionals.
I like this observation, because the kind of information imbalance normal for today wasn't for late XIX and early XX centuries, where our common ideas of economics originate, Marxist and Austrian and what not.
It's not that the weak could say more about the strong in the press, it's the speed with which information traveled, and also that the strong had more trouble coordinating their actions.
Why did I type this bullshit anyway, as if it changes something.
Big mood.
Do people still say big mood?
The "underlying value" isn't much of a concern if you're someone seeking funding or a small investor. It's also not much of a concern if the "unchecked moral hazards" are still funneling money towards a small group of capitalists. Or if the political ramifications of the reporting are impactful in other areas.
It's not a media conspiracy if all the real world consequences are based on the same consensual reality. "It's all fake reporting anyway" is not a valid response here, even without disputing the base assumptions, which I probably would.