> An Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat to feed animals on his own farm. The US government had established limits on wheat production, based on the acreage owned by a farmer, to stabilize wheat prices and supplies. Filburn grew more than was permitted and so was ordered to pay a penalty. In response, he said that because his wheat was not sold, it could not be regulated as commerce, let alone "interstate" commerce (described in the Constitution as "Commerce... among the several states"). The Supreme Court disagreed: "Whether the subject of the regulation in question was 'production', 'consumption', or 'marketing' is, therefore, not material for purposes of deciding the question of federal power before us.... But even if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'
Then it was misinterpreted in Wickard to permit nearly limitless power to Congress.
So yes, in a new Constitution we would want a commerce clause, and we would want it never to be interpreted in such a manner.
A lot of the established press was against it and they did constantly published “hit pieces”.
History is written by the victors if the American Revolution didn’t succeed the US would likely eventually gained independence but it would’ve been a commonwealth nation. The Revolution isn’t the reason why you have freedom today, Canada is free so is the UK. The world would look quite different than it is today but not as different as you might think.
There are no divisions on this board, everyone is against the Power that is being exhibited right now. TD, Interactive Brokers and Robinhood have bent the knee to enrich the rich at the expense of many.
Bending the knee is not right, there must be some sanity in the market. They're trying to protect mom and dad from losing their shirts.
I'm happy to change my phrase, what would you call it when brokerages unilaterally help their market makers by changing trading terms to ones that favor one side. Halting trading is usually done by an exchange.
> Market makers have no interest in owning the stock. They have no interest in being long or short. They're like a furniture or electronics store. They match buyers and sellers, and for this, they make a slim profit margin. This profit margin is known as the spread. The reason they make a profit is because risk is involved. If they sell stock to you, but the price is so volatile that it moves up and up before they can find a buyer and equal out their book, they can lose a lot of money, and they can lose it fast.
> This is why discount brokers (Robinhood, Cashapp, Webull, etc...) have stopped allowing people to buy GME, and AMC, among others. They can't find a market maker to take your order. It sucks because retail made a lot of dumb moves, and bought a lot of shares they shouldn't have bought, and they're going to lose a ton of money, but it's not a conspiracy. [1]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/l6qhhg/discussi...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/l7bo3r/the_game...
Hedge funds have treated the stock market like their own personal casino for decades. When the house starts to lose at their own game, due to their own greed, it's suddenly a problem?
Don't know what you're on about the house losing here. Brokers make a killing on any trade action. Heavy retail day trading inevitably falters and ends up creating tons of poor while money flows into the pockets of a few. See: the year 2000.
"What. the fuck. are you talking about?!"
Tesla's price-to-earnings ratio is 1660.
Why didn't TSLA buying get shut down? OH yeah, because a shitload of institutional investors have shares.
Short selling absolutely is a zero sum game.