Civil War movie review

Civil War is a masterful illustration of uninhibited and unrestrained irrationality in action. It is a moving, and occasionally still, canvas portraying human looking beings, driven by nothing but blind allegiance to their tribe, towards their only goal to dispose of those who do not belong. Civil War doesn't hold any punches. In every scene it hits the viewer with haunting, raw images of their worst nightmare, mercilessly gnawing at their last remnants of hope for a civilized world. Characters are purposefully under developed. They are mostly vehicles, leading and guiding the viewer through the catacombs of the new reality, and just letting them witness it, in shock and awe. Build up to the climax is brilliant. The subhuman beings haven't changed as far as purpose and drive, but their actions are now enhanced by the highest level of training and top military technology. There are no good guys in the movie. But there are no bad guys either. Civil War takes place not in a dystopian future, as the synopsis claims, but in the world where morality has been abandoned and 'good' and 'bad' have lost any meaning: our world, present day. As Lee puts it: "So, we [reporters] don't ask [those questions]. We record, so other people ask.", failing to see that the world has stopped asking, because they have given up on moral judgment. 

Civil War has eerie similarities with the Eagle Pass Standoff of early this year, making it even more disturbing and daunting.

My favorite quote: 'Oh, I get it. You're retarded."

Now, on Prime Video

Violence by Proxy

I posted this on the Objectivism Online forum in 2012

It is commonly agreed upon in the objectivist world that there is such thing as violence by proxy. In other words, if A persuades B to initiate physical force against C, A is morally responsible and should be punished. The type of persuasion is usually irrelevant. It could be blackmail, religious brainwashing, racist propaganda, monetary incentives, etc. The guilty are always the Mafia boss and the leader of some cult, and rarely (and to a much lesser extent) the ones who actually pull the trigger.

My take on this is that it is wrong. A is not guilty and should not be punished. What is evil is ONLY initiation of physical force, and only B does that. So, let me say it again: A is not guilty! At all! Only B should be punished by law.

So here, again, is my argument for the hired-gun case - A pays B to kill C. A while ago, when I presented my view, the main argument against it was that such a law would pave the way for more hired-gun killings which are stopped today only by the punishing of A. The boost would be generated by the fact that it is difficult to catch the killer since he has no apparent motive.

This reflects a classic judgement error, which typically goes like this:

In an existing context, an action has a set of effects. If the context is changed, the set of effects will be different.

This line of reasoning fails to consider the possibility that in the new context the action might simply not take place, which will eliminate the effects altogether.

Let's apply the correct reasoning to our case. What is the new context? It's determined by the new law which punishes only B - the one who pulls the trigger. What is the action? It's the pulling of the trigger. Will the action still take place in the new context? The answer is a resounding NO! That's because, knowing before hand that A is not doing anything illegal, B will realize that nothing prevents A from turning him in. There is no more sharing of guilt, no sense of conspiracy, of mutual, tacit, implicit agreement on a code of silence. This is a lot easier to see if you imagine the conversation between A and B. B would want it to take place in a isolated area, and make sure that no one else can hear it and no records of it can be made. The key words have to be whispered, or even not said. While A has no problem with that, for him it's just another contract. A does not break any law. It's clear that such a conversation cannot take place. Even if A plays along and speaks softly, B knows that it's all fake.

Moreover, imagine that the conversation does take place, the deal is made, the price is set. The money is to be paid after the killing. Let's also assume that B goes ahead and kills C. What is A going to do? His options are - pay up or turn B in to the police and save his money. The choice is clear. Now, knowing this, B might want to be paid upfront. Would A agree? He'd be stupid to do so. Nothing guarantees that B will do it. It's obvious that B wouldn't want to sign a contract to that effect, therefore A can't even sue B.

In conclusion, the action of killing will not take place. A has to do it himself, and most likely he won't since he was thinking of hiring a killer in the first place. This law would result in a dramatic DECREASE in hired-gun killings. This includes the Mafia type organizations that are based on this type of delegation of responsibility. The Capo di tutti capi would have to get a job at the convenience store to make an honest living, since he's too old and too fat to do any killings on his own.

The End of the American Republic

Joe Biden's condition all but guarantees Trump's victory in November. Is Trump an "existential threat"? No. Trump is just an un-principled pragmatist, a narcicistic megalomaniac, and a pathological liar. Incapable to hold even a simple idea and stand by it, he contradicts half of his statements while labelling the other half as fake news. He's religious but not really, he's conservative when not liberal, he is what the moment requires him to be. He admires Putin, adores Kim Jong Un and bemoans knowing that he will never be like them. He wants to make America great again but hasn't the faintest idea what made it great in the first place. He was one of the worst Presidents in America's history and his next term will be even worse. But an existential threat, no. He wouldn't know where to start.

The same cannot be said about JD Vance, Trump's choice for Vice-President. JD Vance is downright dangerous. He checks all the boxes - good looking, young, smart, articulate, working class roots, former Marine, tour in Iraq, law degree from Yale. And he holds some of the most vicious, anti-American, ideas.

"If I was giving [Trump] one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people." OUR people!

“We are in a late republican period. If we’re going to push back against it, we’re going to have to get pretty wild, and pretty far out there, and go in directions that a lot of conservatives right now are uncomfortable with.” A reference to the late Roman Republic, awaiting salvation from Caesar himself. WILD and FAR OUT!

“And when the courts stop you, stand before the country, and say 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.' ” So, nothing can stop him, not even the Supreme Court. To hell with the Constitution, the Congress, individual rights, and the checks and balances of the American system of government. Congress and the Courts can only produce words. Him, on the other hand, he's the one holding the Executive Power.

Well, not him, yet. He only has to lie in waiting, sharpening his dagger, for Caesar to cross the Rubicon. It's only four years until 2028.

The real climate catastrophe

DEI is finally dying. ESG is being laughed at. BLM is realizing the B is superfluous. It seems that the climate change movement is beginning to be heading in the same direction.

Three scientists

- Richard Lindzen, Professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Emeritus Massachusetts Institute of Technology;

- William Happer, Professor of Physics, Emeritus Princeton University;

- Steven Koonin, University Professor, New York University, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute;

issued a paper in which they, basically, agree with me: The imminent catastrophe is not climate change, but the climate change movement itself.

Here is the Table of Contents:

-----

I. THERE WILL BE DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE POOR, PEOPLE WORLDWIDE, FUTURE GENERATIONS AND THE WEST IF FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2 EMISSIONS ARE REDUCED TO “NET ZERO”

A. CO2 is Essential to Our Food, and Thus to Life on Earth

B. More CO2, Including CO2 from Fossil Fuels, Produces More Food.

C. More CO2 Increases Food in Drought-Stricken Areas.

D. Greenhouse Gases Prevent Us from Freezing to Death

E. Enormous Social Benefits of Fossil Fuels

F. “Net Zeroing” Fossil Fuels Will Cause Massive Human Starvation by Eliminating Nitrogen Fertilizer

II. THE IPCC IS GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED AND THUS ONLY ISSUES GOVERNMENT OPINIONS, NOT SCIENCE, THUS PROVIDES NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE COURT’S OPINION

III. SCIENCE DEMONSTRATES FOSSIL FUELS AND CO2 WILL NOT CAUSE DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE AND EXTREME WEATHER

A. Reliable Science is Based on Validating Theoretical Predictions With Observations, Not Consensus, Peer Review, Government Opinion or Cherry-Picked or Falsified Data

B. The Models Predicting Catastrophic Warming and Extreme Weather Fail the Key Scientific Test: They Do Not Work, and Would Never Be Used in Science.

C. 600 Million Years of CO2 and Temperature Data Contradict the Theory That High Levels of CO2 Will Cause Catastrophic Global Warming.

D. Atmospheric CO2 Is Now “Heavily Saturated,” Which in Physics Means More CO2 Will Have Little Warming Effect.

E. The Theory Extreme Weather is Caused by Fossil Fuels and CO2 is Contradicted by the Scientific Method and Thus is Scientifically Invalid

-------

I was right again 😇

Stock market strategies for beginners

Foreword

This post is for beginners like me. I'm writing this down in my own words as I read about it.

All the investors in the following strategies are fictional, very poor, and have excellent credit.

Yes, the following is investment advice. Sue me.

For simplicity:

• Interest is not compounded;
• Capital gain taxes are not considered;
• Trading commissions are zero.

===============

A. Buy low, sell high

Adam likes the company Fake Enterprises, so he believes its stock, FENT, currently trading at $20, will go up (Adam is bullish on FENT). So he borrows $10,000 at 12% interest and buys 500 FENT shares ($10,000 / $20). Three years later, FENT trades at $56, and Adam decides to sell all his 500 shares, for a total of $28,000 (500 x $56). He then pays off his original loan of $10,000 and is now debt free.

What is his ROI (return on investment)? In the three years he has paid $3,600 ($10,000 x 12% x 3) in interest. His profit is $14,400 ($28,000 - $10,000 - $3,600). That means a ROI of 144% ($14,400 / $10,000) in three years, or 48% / year.

The risk of Adam's strategy is that Fake Enterprises does not perform as expected and FENT starts going down. Let's say after eight months of swearing and loss of sleep, Adam decides to finally sell all his 500 shares at $14, therefore taking a loss of $3,000 ( 500 x ($14 - $20) ). On top of it, he has also paid $800 ($10,000 x 1% x 8) in interest on his loan. Adam's ROI is now -38% ( ($3,000 + $800) / $10,000 ) in eight months, or -57% / year.

In the worst case scenario, FENT goes suddenly bankrupt, say one year later, and the stock goes down to $0. Adam has lost everything, including $1,200 in interest payments. His ROI is -112%. At least this is just a one night nightmare, it cannot get worse than that. Adam can write this loss off and get on with his life, having learnt a valuable lesson.

===

B. Sell high, buy low

Barbie is bearish on FENT. She believes Fake Enterprises is badly managed and its stock will go down. Her strategy to make money (called short selling, or shorting) is exactly the same as Adam's, except she swaps "Money" with "Shares". Therefore she borrows 500 shares of FENT at 12% interest and sells them for a total of $10,000 ($20 x 500). Eight months later FENT stock is trading, to Adam's despair, at $14. Barbie buys 714 shares ($10,000 / $14) shares, pays off her original loan of 500 shares and is now debt free.

In the eight months she has paid 40 shares (500 x 1% x 8) in interest. Her profit is 174 shares (714 - 500 - 40). Barbie's ROI is 34.8% (174 / 500) in eight months, or 52% / year.

Before we go to risk evaluation, let's tackle what might seem a glaring problem with Barbie's strategy: Calculating the ROI in terms of shares instead of money. This is utterly meaningless, the argument goes. In real life there's nothing Barbie can do with shares, since every single other aspect of the economy is expressed in dollars, not in FENTs. That she has 174 more FENTs than she had eight months before doesn't help her a bit, particularly since the value of a FENT has fallen so much since. I could agree with this argument if it wasn't simply subjective. The exact same argument can be brought to invalidate Adam's strategy: To calculate ROI in terms of (Fiat) money is meaningless. A dollar's worth can, at any time, become half of what it was a year ago. Particularly since dollars, as opposed to FENTs, can be printed at will. This is even more obvious if Barbie, instead of shorting FENT, she shorts BTC (Bitcoin), which is inflation-proof. A FENT is a percentage of a real (even though it is a fake enterprise) business with real assets and real employees, which provides real goods and real services. Unless it's a complete fraud, the Free Market all but guarantees that a FENT has at least some value. A dollar, in the meantime, is nothing more than the spooky incarnation of a government bureaucrat's whim, and it only has value because in the shadow of his whim there lurkes a real policeman with a real gun and real bullets. True, the local grocer won't trade his bread in exchange for Barbie's FENTs, but he'd love to trade it in exchange for her BTCs. If they both had real bulletproof vests.

So, what's the risk of short selling? Again, it's the same as Adam's risk, swapping "Money" and "Shares". The risk is that the management of Fake Enterprises is actually good and the value of the dollar goes down. The lower it goes, the higher Barbie's loss, since she needs more dollars to purchase the shares she owes. The big difference is that, as opposed to Adam, whose maximum risk is "everything he invested plus interest", Barbie's maximum risk is infinite, because there is no limit on how good the management of the company, or how bad the managers of the dollar, can be. Therefore, for either of these reasons, FENT could go to, say, $20,000, at which point Barbie would need $10M to purchase the 500 shares. True, it might be the case that her salary at that point in time is $100M/year, but Barbie should not count on that. With risk that high, short selling is not for the faint of heart.

===

C. Call Options

Charlie is bullish on FENT. Unlike Adam however, Charlie hates debt and is also risk averse, so he does nothing. Until one cold evening in March when he meets Claire who is bearish on FENT. It turns out that Claire loves living on the edge and is willing to take on Charlie's risk. In exchange for a fee of $0.80/share, she gives Charlie the option to buy from her 500 shares of FENT stock at $20, for the next six months, regardless of what the price of the stock really is. This gives Charlie the opportunity to wait until he can confirm his hunch about FENT going up, and only then make the purchase. At today's price! He immediately sees his strategy. He withdraws $400 from his credit line at 12% interest (a negligible $4/month) and gives it to Claire. All he needs is for FENT to reach his break-even price of $20.80 before September. If he exercises his option at that price (he buys from Claire the 500 shares at $20) and sells them right away at $20.80 on the open market, he makes an instant profit of $0.80/share which covers the $400 fee. Of course, Charlie thinks, he will not exercise his option at that ridiculously low price. He will wait for it to go higher and make $500 of pure profit for every dollar FENT goes up, because the contract compels Claire to sell those shares to him at $20, not a penny more, regardless of how high the price went. He just has to figure out when to sell, in order to maximize his profit. It has to be before September though, when the option expires. So, unlike crazy Adam who risks $10,000 plus huge interest fees, Charlie only risks losing at most the $400 fee if FENT does not go over the break-even price before September. That's manageable, even Charlie can handle that, especially since he has a strong feeling that FENT will go to the moon in the next couple of weeks. So, in exchange for the $400, Claire gives Charlie an option contract that specifies the following:

- the underlying asset: FENT;

- the contract type: Call (that's the name for an option to "buy" the underlying asset);

- the expiration date: September, 2024;
- the strike price: $20 (the price at which Charlie is entitled to buy the underlying asset);
- the premium: $0.80 (the fee charged by Claire for each share in the contract);

- the quantity: 5 (by default, one contract is for 100 shares) 

So, Claire now has $400 more while Charlie is the holder of a call option. Claire, the writer of the call option, hopes FENT stays below the strike price until September when Charlie's call option expires worthless and she's $400 richer. However, just like Barbie, Claire runs an infinite risk, since, in theory nothing prevents FENT from reaching, say, $20,000 before September. If it does, and Charlie exercises his call option, Claire is in big trouble, since, as the contract requires, she MUST purchase 500 shares at $20,000 and sell them to Charlie at $20 leaving her with virtually $10M loss. To hedge this risk, Claire could use a covered call strategy. Before we go into that, let's look at the other type of options contract.

D. Put Options

Dan is bearish on FENT. He could short it, but he doesn't want Barbie's infinite risk. So he talks to Diana who is bullish on FENT and believes it will not go below $20. Therefore Diana writes a put option and sells it to Dan. A put option is just like a call option while swapping "buy" with "sell".

- the underlying asset: FENT;

- the contract type: Put (that's the name for an option to "sell" the underlying asset);

- the expiration date: September, 2024;
- the strike price: $20 (the price at which Dan is entitled to sell the underlying asset);
- the premium: $0.80 (the fee charged by Diana for each share in the contract);

- the quantity: 5 (by default, one contract is for 100 shares) 

In exchange for the premium, Diana gives Dan the option to sell to her 500 shares of FENT at $20 before September, regardless of FENT's market price. Dan's break-even price is $19.20. Anything lower than that is pure profit. His plan is to exercise his option when FENT reaches $14. At that moment he will purchase 500 shares of FENT at $14 and sell them to Diana for $20. The put contract compels her to make that terrible purchase. Dan makes $2,600 ( ($19.20 - $14) x 500). His risk is that FENT stays above the break-even price, and he ends up losing the premium, which is his maximum loss. Diana's maximum loss, which is also Dan's maximum profit, occurs if Fake Enterprises goes bankrupt and FENT goes to $0. Dan exercises his option at $0 making (and Diana losing) $9,600 ($19.20 x 500). Diana's maximum gain is the premium, which she makes if FENT stays above the strike price.

E. Covered Calls

Let's go back to Claire who expects FENT to stay low. She runs an infinite risk if FENT starts going higher and higher. To manage this risk, she should cover her call option, by purchasing some of the shares she might have to buy in the future. So, when writing the call option to Charlie, she also buys 300 FENTs at $20, for $6,000. Let's look at possible outcomes from here.

1. FENT starts going up and reaches $22. Claire admits she was wrong about Fake Enterprises and buys the remaining 200 FENTs for $4,400. Her call options contract with Charlie is now 100% covered in the event FENT goes really high.

1.a. FENT keeps going higher and Charlie exercises his option at $27. Claire sells to him her 500 FENTs at $20, for $10,000. She ends up breaking even, since the premium cancels out the $400 lost on the shares.

1.b. FENT starts going down and reaches $19 in August. Claire admits she was wrong about being wrong and sells all her FENTs for $9,500. In September Charlie's option expires worthless and Claire ends up losing $500 ($9,500 - $6,000 - $4,400 + $400). This is Claire's worst case scenario.

2. As Claire expected (she was right after all) FENT stays below $20. In August it trades at $19 and Claire decides to sell her 300 FENTs for $5,700, netting $100 ( ($6,000 - $5,700 + $400) of profit.

F. Covered Puts

Now, back to Diana who is bullish on FENT. Her highest potential loss is $9,600 if FENT goes to $0. To manage this risk, she should cover the put option she wrote to Dan, by buying some of the money she might need when Dan exercises his option. So, when writing the put option to Dan in exchange for the $400 premium, she also shorts 300 FENTs at $20, for $6,000. Let's look at .....

WAIT! WHAT? She BUYS some of the MONEY!!?? Well, yes. With the borrowed FENTs 🙄. If this is still unclear, ask Barbie.

Now let's look at the possible outcomes.

1. As Dan was hoping, FENT starts going down and reaches $18. Diana admits she might have been wrong about Fake Enterprises and shorts the remaining 200 FENTs for $3,600.

1.a. FENT keeps going lower. Now fully covered, Diana couldn't care less how low can FENT go, she is guaranteed not to lose a penny, even if it goes to $0. That's because she already has the $10,000 ( ($6,000 + $3,600 + $400) ) she needs for the purchase of the 500 FENTs from Dan when he exercises his option. And with those, she can close her short position.

1.b. FENT starts going back up and in September, when Dan's option expires worthless, it trades at $21. To close her short position, Diana needs 500 FENTs which she buys for $10,500. She ends up losing $500 ($10,500 - $10,000). This is Diana's worst case scenario.

2. FENT starts going up reaching $21 in September, when Dan's option expires worthless. To close her short position, Diana needs 300 FENTs which she buys for $6,300. Her profit is $100 ($400 + $6,000 - $6,300).

To conclude, whether a call or a put, covering an options contract reduces the writer's risk, by diminishing both the expected profit and expected loss.

===============

Where do investors get each month the FENTs they must pay in interest? To keep it simple, let's say the management of Fake Enterprises does a good enough job to keep the company at the same value for the next six months. Also, Fake Enterprises does not issue new shares, nor does it buy back existing ones, so the number of outstanding shares remains constant. All else being equal, FENT would stay stable at exactly $20.

On that fateful evening in March our investors decide they want to get into the game of FENTs.

• Adam wants to buy 500 shares.
• Barbie wants to sell 500 shares that she doesn't have.
• Charlie and Dan want nothing, they just bring each $400 into the game.
• Claire takes Charlie's money and wants to buy 300 FENTs to cover her call option.
• Diana takes Dan's money and wants to sell 300 FENTs, that she doesn't have, to cover her put option.

As it stands, everyone wants exactly what someone else wants to get rid of. Since the demand matches exactly the supply, FENT stays at $20 and all transactions are done at that price. The investors who want to just borrow FENTs and immediately sell them, simply write IOUs (I Owe You) to the seller. For example, Barbie borrows 500 shares from Adam, writing to him an IOU in exchange, and immediately sells them back to him in exchange for $10,000. Claire does the same with Diana. Since they are on the stock market, IOUs are now assets, and can be traded like any other type of debt assets. Let an IOU be a promise to return 100 FENTs, at 12%, before September. At the end of the day the situation looks like this:

• Adam has -$10,000 and +5 IOUs.
• Barbie has +$10,000 and -5 IOUs.
• Claire has +$400 and -3 IOUs.
• Charlie has -$400 and +5 call options.
• Diana has +$400 and +3 IOUs.
• Dan has -$400 and +5 put options.

Interesting to note that no FENTs have actually changed hands and yet all the guys above are now investors. In April, however, some interest is due. Barbie must pay 5 FENTs to Adam while Claire must pay 3 FENTS to Diana. As opposed to the Government, who can simply print the dollars they owe, or rob Peter to pay Paul, Barbie and Claire have no other choice but to purchase the FENTs. Which constitutes an extra demand. The Free Market does create the required supply, but only at the price of FENT going up.

So, FENT went up for no other reason but the interest owed on borrowed shares, or in other words, the cost of time. Those IOUs are the equivalent, and the expression, of inflation in the world of stocks. They are Fiat-shares, so to speak. This is more bad news for investors who are short on FENT. The price of FENT increased precisely because there is short interest in it. The more investors believe FENT will go down, and act on that belief by shorting the stock, the higher the stock has the tendency to go.

It gets worse for them as time goes by. In August FENT trades at $22. Adam would be only a little richer if he sells his shares, so he waits. So does Charlie, who makes almost no profit if he exercises his call option. Claire sticks to her plan and covers the rest of her call option by purchasing the remaining 200 FENTs. Dan has lost any hope and says good bye to the premium he paid to Diana. Diana closes her short position as planned, for a small profit. Barbie, however, whose naked short gives her nightmares even during the day, has started taking anti-depressants. Eventually, she WILL HAVE to make the dreaded purchase. She could start now, by buying some of the shares at a (small) loss, but she's stubborn. It will go down! She can feel it!

The key takeaway from all this is: Investors who are short MUST purchase the FENTs they've borrowed as well as the FENTs they owe as interest. And here is the question few are willing to ask: What if no one is selling?

Impossible! the conventional wisdom declares. This kind of short squeezes have been tried over and over with no real success. There are just so many rules in place and so many people involved, there is no way this can occur to any significant effect. First, the Free Market and the profit motive ensure that the higher the price goes, the more sellers will be willing to sell, establishing, as always, an objective balance between supply and demand. Then there is the logistics of it all. How would somebody convince all, or even most, owners to stop selling? Impossible! Then there are the brokers and trading companies. They charge fees for transactions, and most of the time do not even allow naked shorts and uncovered option contracts, they require guarantees, and collateral. Impossible! And then there is the guardian and guarantor of fairness and justice - The Government. It would never allow for such an aberration. It runs dozens of agencies, employs hundreds of auditors, and has unleashed thousands of rules and regulations to oversee this particular economic sector. So, yeah: IMPOSSIBLE!

Oh, yes, POSSIBLE! And it did happen. And Wall Street lost. A LOT!

=============

The GameStop Short Squeeze

In late 2019 Game Stop (GME) was close to bankruptcy, everybody was in agreement it was going to go bust. Therefore there was a lot of short interest in GameStop. Melvin Capital and Citron Research among others were heavily shorting its stock. At one point, GME was sold short 140%! That means that for each existing share of GME, 1.4 shares were owed. For every 100 existing shares of GME there were 140 IOUs.

It was around that time when a guy, known as Roaring Kitty on YouTube, and as DeepFuckingValue (DFV) on Reddit, bought $50,000 worth of GME call options. DFV thought GME was undervalued and that it was going to go up to a level where he would exercise them and buy a decent house. In less than two years, GME went from $0.80 to $80. DFV bought a $7.2M mansion in Massachusetts. How was this possible, Mr Market? How did he know not to exercise his options at $8, for more than enough to buy the house of his dreams? How come GME did actually go that high since GameStop was close to bankruptcy to begin with? Well, DFV had all the tools needed to overcome all those obstacles and safeguards put in place by all kinds of people and organizations, and organize a squeeze. True, all his stars aligned as well.

Broker fees? Virtually zero. He used Robinhood, which is not a financial institution, but an app.

Collateral? None needed. $50,000 is the most he could lose, he probably borrowed that money from the family.

Government oversight? None. They keep their eyes on the big guys, not on a guy in a basement.

Logistics? Easy - Social media. Melvin Capital and other Wall Street institutions had underestimated the power of the empty word. A flashy YouTube channel featuring cute cats, and an aggressive r/wallstreetbets subreddit constantly dangling in front of everyone's eyes the riches that could be made, is all you need. Particularly when the pandemic had everyone locked down, schools were closed, and the Millennials had not much else to spend their stimulus checks on. So they didn't need much convincing to buy. They did need convincing to hold and not sell or exercise their call options. Why? To squeeze the short sellers. To stick it to the rich. To show Wall Street how it's done. And they held. The more they held, the higher GME went. The higher it went, the higher the pressure on short sellers to buy, pushing GME even higher. The squeeze worked. In its wake, Melving Capital shut down, after losing at one point $1B/day.

After all this investment advice, here is my legal advice as well. Sue me. Was this squeeze legal? Most likely not. DFV truly believed GME was undervalued, so the initial purchases were legit. The squeeze itself, however, is clearly stock manipulation which is 100% illegal. If this was done by Wall Street, lots of CEOs would have been sent to prison. But not DFV, a regular guy with student loans. He was initially poor, therefore right. Right? Later, the Government did investigate him and others, no charges were laid. There was an unequivocal conflict of interest between Robinhood and their market-maker partner Citadel who was losing money because of the squeeze. The two agreed at one point to restrict trading, and were subsequently sued by traders for collusion 🤣 .

============

So, that's it! Let's start making some money 😎😏

UN General Assembly backs Palestinian bid for membership

On May 10th UNGA said that Palestine is eligible to become a full member of the UN. Considering the massive violations of the rights of Palestinians, committed by the Hammas and PLO, UNGA's backing should seem at least surprising. A better reaction would be a total disdain for the UN as such, and for everything it represents, and to dismiss anything it says, does, demands and declares from now on. Now, of course, this is just a political maneuver to force Israel into some sort of a cease-fire. So, I'll leave that aspect aside, they've done much worse than that. But that led me to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. What a joke!

From the get-go, Article 1 says "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights." Equal in rights, yes. But in dignity? 🤣 Oxford dictionary defines dignity as "the state or quality of being worthy of honor or respect". A newly born child is not worthy of either. Only as the child grows up, it might become worthy of them, based on its character, which is determined by its choices as an adult. It's not enough to simply pass a certain age to be worthy of anything, let alone honor or respect. Those, the adult must gain. Ok, let's leave dignity, it's not that important, right? Let's turn to rights.

What are rights, according to UDHR? I offer a six pack of the beer of their choice to anyone who finds a definition in that document. There isn't one. That, of course, doesn't stop the UN from mentioning the word "right" 73 times. I guess, it sounds nice, important, authoritative, so let's empty it of any real content and abuse it at will.

This is not nit picking. The UDHR is "is a milestone document in the history of human rights" and it claims to represent "a common standard of achievements for all peoples and all nations". But instead of offering a real standard, it just goes wild on a list of stuff, square-pegged into the category of rights.

If Rights were correctly, objectively defined, only 3 articles would be needed:

Article 3 

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person

half of Article 7

All are equal before the law and are entitled [...] to equal protection of the law

and Article 17

Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property

All the other articles deal with details, examples and methods of implementation. But since there's no definition, they must keep going into those details, in a pathetic attempt to shift the burden of clarification onto the shoulders of the reader. The result is, of course, not one objective clarification, but an infinite number of subjective interpretations of every statement in that document. The failure of this document to provide anything of substance is very well summarized by its own Article 30:

Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

In other words, if anybody finds any contradictions in this document, the UN distances itself from any consequences a specific interpretation might lead to.

Are there any contradictions? Not really, says the UN, as long as the concept of right keeps shifting and floating. Let's see.

Article 13 says Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. If an individual is in a wheelchair and nobody wants to push it in the direction he wants to go, is this right violated ? Maybe, maybe not. 

Article 16 says The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. Is a person who refuses to form this fundamental group entitled to this protection? One would hope so, but maybe there is a good reason why they call them "human", and not "individual", rights. Is a woman refusing to carry her pregnancy to term protected by the State? Um... yes?

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought (it's terrifying that the UN even deemed necessary to state this) and to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. Really!? What if a particular religion's manifestation (I'm not going to name names here) in practice is to kill non-believers? Is that protected? No, the UN hastens to say, that would violate Article 3. Ok, fine, not kill. Maybe just maim them a little? Throwing them off of rooftops of tall buildings, and letting gravity do the killing?

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression [...] and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. Can The New York Times refuse to print the opinion of a Republican? Can Twitter delete posts at will? Can an atheist family refuse to let in their home a religious salesman?

Article 20: Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. Anywhere? In the middle of a public street? Inside a public University? Or a private one, for that matter?

It gets worse. A lot worse!

Article 22: Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security ... So, not everyone has this right, but only those who are members of society. Can an individual decide not to be a member? Do we need membership cards, issued by governments? Exactly what "social security" means is not clear, but all members of society have the right to it. It could mean the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. ¡Ay, caramba! What? There is that word, again, "dignity"! But before that, it seems that now there are economic, social and cultural rights. And it's these rights that confer dignity to a (family oriented, socially approved) person, and not that person's character. It doesn't matter how horrible the person is, he has all those rights. Is it his responsibility to acquire all that stuff? No, it's the responsibility of society: through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State. So, a homeless person is entitled to free lodging? I guess he is, if he is incapable of providing it for himself. Can it simply be a heated shelter? Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how dignified he feels. Society must keep on upping the shelter's quality until he stops complaining. And the same applies to food, right? And medicine? And what else? Free movies and concerts, to satisfy his cultural rights as well? Is there a limit? Or, as long as the man's personality is still under development, we should keep on feeding, clothing and entertaining him to no end?

Article 23 is so non-sensical, they divided it into sections. Probably to make it obvious:

1. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. So, firing someone is a violation of this right?
2. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Equal work in the sense of effort, or results? 
3. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.  I'm guessing social protection means what Article 22 refers to as "social security".
4. Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

I get the sense that the UN realized they're getting nowhere and rushed it, instead of at least attempting to clearly define favourable, protection, equal work, ensuring, worthy, dignity (again!), necessary and interests.

From here the document goes into full enumeration mode. Everyone (I guess) has the right to: rest and leisure, holidays with pay, adequate standard of living, education, health care, and enjoyment of arts. The epitome of this enumeration is Article 25 which ends with an all encompassing or other lack of livelihood. They probably got tired of enumerating and ended it with the mother-of-all-enumerations.

Who is responsible for the implementation of all these rights? Article 29 makes it clear: Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.The message is clear: No one is free. Each one of us is their brother's keeper. None of you, you evil independent thinkers, can fully develop your own personality outside society, on which you absolutely depend.

Currently, 193 member states are financing and promoting the aberration above.

========

The central problem of this document is, as I said, the lack of definition of "right". The best place to see this is in Article 23: Everyone has the right to work. This sentence can have two, completely opposite, meanings, depending on what "work" is viewed as: as a noun, or as a verb. Is the right of an unemployed person violated? The answer to this question, according to UDHR, is Yes, if 'work' is a noun, and No, if it's a verb. If 'work' is a verb, it means that he is free to work, if he can find employment. Finding work is his problem. His right is not violated unless someone physically interferes with him to stop him from working. However, if 'work' is a noun, it means that someone else (society, I guess) should provide him with employment, which is his, by right. There should be no confusion about this, all UN has to do is read Ayn Rand who makes it clear: The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

========

The entire declaration should be replaced with:

A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)

The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.

Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.

The right to life is the source of all rights—and the right to property is their only implementation. Without property rights, no other rights are possible. Since man has to sustain his life by his own effort, the man who has no right to the product of his effort has no means to sustain his life. The man who produces while others dispose of his product, is a slave.

Bear in mind that the right to property is a right to action, like all the others: it is not the right to an object, but to the action and the consequences of producing or earning that object. It is not a guarantee that a man will earn any property, but only a guarantee that he will own it if he earns it. It is the right to gain, to keep, to use and to dispose of material values.

Ayn Rand

“Man’s Rights,”

The Virtue of Selfishness

=======

It's that simple.

US airman shot and killed by police in Florida

May 9

According to the BBC , Senior Airman Roger Fortson was shot by the police at his Florida home.

Police said the deputy reacted in self-defence after he saw Fortson armed with a gun.

Citing a witness who was on a video call with Mr Fortson, the lawyer alleges that police burst into the wrong home.

According to the witness, Mr Fortson heard a knock on his apartment door and asked who was there, but received no response. He then heard a second, "very aggressive knock" but did not see anyone when he looked through the peephole. It is at this point that Fortson is said to have grown concerned and retrieved his gun, which was legally owned. As Fortson returned to his living room, police burst through the door, saw that the resident was armed and shot him six times.

=======

My comments, since I got nothing better to do.

If what the witness says is true, this is not just a horrible mistake leading to a tragic outcome, the police is criminally responsible for it and the investigation should find the deputy guilty of at least manslaughter. 

However, I have my doubts this is all there is to this. Obviously this was a police operation involving several officers, not just one deputy responding to a nuisance in the neighborhood. They might have been at the wrong address, but that makes no difference. When the police knocks at a door, they absolutely must identify themselves as such, regardless if this is about arresting a violent felon, or a false burlglary alarm. The fact that they didn't, particularly when Mr Fortson asked who was there, is a flagrant violation of a well established procedure. I have a hard time believing that ALL officers made this error and none of them gave an answer.

Then, why would they knock again? What did they expect? That a more aggressive knock would scare the expected criminal inside and make him peacefully open the door? That Mr Fortson was armed when they burst into the house, and even if he was pointing the gun at the police, was to be expected, since he had no way of knowing who is bursting through the door of his own house. In this case, the deputy would not be acting in self defense, but as an aggressor.

This makes absolutely no sense. If this is indeed true, this was not an error, this was an assassination and the officers involved should all get the electric chair.

But we'll see what the investigation unveils...

=====

May 12 update

New information available. First, it wasn't a house, as I had assumed, it was an apartment. Second, it was only one sheriff's deputy, it was not an operation. Third, a bodycam video was released. The deputy responded alone to a disturbance. Based on the video, I say this was a tragic accident. The responsibility lies 90% with the victim, 10% with the officer. The officer clearly identified himself, twice, in a loud voice. It's quite possible that the victim could not see the officer in the peephole, but he opened (the officer did not burst it) the door casually, he did not seem afraid or unsure of who it was on the other side. When he opened the door, it could clearly be seen that he was carrying a handgun. This mistake cost him his life. The gun was indeed pointed down and was never raised or aimed at the officer. The officer did indeed overreact, but his shooting was in the end justified. It could be seen as a self-defence action since he was facing an armed man. A terrible tragedy! 😥

May 28 update

An expert analysis of an extended video. More details reveal that the tragedy is much greater than I originally thought. The apartment is bright and super clean, the victim has a small, cute puppy, a vacuum cleaner being charged in the hallway, everything points to him being a young man leading an exemplary life, with a brilliant future. An unspeakable tragedy 😥.