Fuck this movie, why do all the normies think they are financial

>>2943771
Explain
I have not seen this happen

>>2943771
I haven't seen it yet. Is it good?

Will it help me earn more motherfucking bitbeans?

>>2943771
So when you're like at a casino you can like bet on a bet and then you have 50 more people behind you betting and that's like basically the stock market

>>2943803
Those are derivatives

>>2943810
Normies don't fucking know that, they don't even know the major types of derivatives. Options, forwards, futures and swaps.

>>2943789
It's entertaining. It's not "good" or even slightly accurate in the sense they want you to believe it is.

>>2943810
No i'm pretty sure you're wrong have you seen the movie?

>>2943803
> t. brainlet that didn't understand the movie and is looking for something to be pissed off.

>>2943771
Wtf? When that happened?
Are you just trying to complain about something beacuse you are bored?

>>2943824
>>2943840
Yeah like thats just your opinion

It's good but the ending made no sense. People blamed immigrants? Da fuck, people blamed wall street. It's like they forgot the occupy protest.

>>2943848
>How dare wall street give me a loan for something I couldn't afford

>>2943848
Agree

>>2943860
Also agree

>all white guys allow their real names to be used
>jewish guy demands to be recast as a white character so people dont see that it was a jew making huge profits on crashing the economy

gas the kikes

I hate jews

Let me say it before /pol/ does:

In reality pretty much every single white guy in that movie was actually Jewish.

And Margin Call is a far better movie. Margin Call is a really good movie actually.

>>2943789

It's good if you don't know stuff. If you do, it will only make you mad.

They end the movie by pretty much saying "pls gubbermint gib more regulashuns XD", completely ignoring the the regulations are what provided the incentive to do the fuckery depicted in the movie.

Best biz movie of all time what a great cast

>>2943771
because it has margot robbie in a bathtub explaining what a short position is and salena gomez explaining what a CDO is.

>>2943771
I don't think anyone thinks that. I think it gave people a better understanding of how corrupt our system really is and that's a good thing.

ITT: libertarian cucks angry that concentration of wealth ALWAYS leads to rich people lobbying and bribing politicians into turning the system to "crony capitalism". pure capitalism will ALWAYS turn into crony capitalism.

>>2943895
christian bale's character isn't jewish at all, same with brad pitt's. the other two are obviously jewish.

File: bogpill.jpg (296KB, 1024x681px) Image search: [Google]

296KB, 1024x681px

Finally watched last night. Enjoyed it alot. A few of the explainer segments were a bit off, but other than it really being a movie about a bunch of kikes doing their homework, it is a great /biz/ movie.

>>2943984
>>2943984
>>2943984

This is the most accurate assessment that I've read in a long time. Is that what all the socialist/communist morons are trying to say but they are too dumb to say it properly!?

>>2943771

Any Jew movie about banking is fake

"No one made money in banking before 1970


They made all the Jewish crooks look like wasps and wasp names

Same as wolf of wall street

The only kike they kept was the actual hero
Lol

>>2944043
99% of people who become socialist/communist are doing it out of emotion and idealism. practicality needs to be a thing. I see nothing wrong with a completely red communist country having a market economy (China), or a capitalist country using socialist programs (Sweden).

>>2943984
I don't think any libertarian would contest that. When the state had something to sell there will always be someone to buy.
One of the central utilitarian points of libertarianism is dramatically paring down what the government had to sell.
Makes a lot more sense than socialists

>The government is being corrupted and abusing their power
>Better give them more power

>Regulatory agencies are betting co-opted for the interests of the regulated industries
>Better make more regulators

>>2944586
>The wealthy are a corrupting force and abusing their power
>Better give them more power

>Wealthy investors are betting co-opted for the interests of the invested industries
>Better make more wealthy people

The difference between the government and the wealthy, is that you can vote out the government. I can't vote out the Koch brothers out of their power.

>>2944695
You can't vote it most of the worst offenders. Fed chairman, regulators, etc. are all appointed and largely faceless.
I find the comparison you make dubious, in any case. I've just illustrated that limiting government power limits wealthy power in turn. You yourself just said that the government is too often co-opted by the rich.
The SEC, IRS, and many more of these agencies write, enforce, and execute their own laws. The wealthy get control and obtain more power than the free market would ever provide. Were it not for the regulatory agencies/politicians in their snare, the Koch brothers likely wouldn't be so rich, and certainly wouldn't be so menacing even if they were.
You seem to be in doublethink. The first argument you've made contradicts the one you're making now.

>>2944827
>I've just illustrated that limiting government power limits wealthy power in turn.
temporarily. only a matter of time until they lobby themselves into power again. unless you somehow prevent private campaign funding and enforce public funding (like Israel does for example) but then that would go against Libertarianism. and even then the wealthy will always control the media and even the internet as we saw in the 2016 elections (with both sides literally brainwashing their voters through the "free" internet)

>Were it not for the regulatory agencies/politicians in their snare, the Koch brothers likely wouldn't be so rich
are you saying that in a Libertarian society, rich people would be less rich than they are now?

>>2945043
Well I agree that limited government would be a tenuous solution that would require vigilance. But even in saying so, you admit it would solve most of the problems we face.
After all, a temporary solution which threatens to fall into disarray is still a better answer than more of the same, or a course of action which empowers the corrupt even further.
Socialism does this, to be sure. All the ails identified would only be magnified as a corrupt government makes the rich richer, and the rich in turn increase the power of the corrupt government.
And to be clear, I'm not saying there wouldn't be folks as wealthy as now, I was literally talking about the Koch brothers. They as well as lots of folks in high finance are wealthy primarily due to government sponsorship, which could not be the case in a libertarian society.
That said, the wealthy that do exist would be less menacing, as I said. Wal-Mart can't make me shop at their store if I don't want to in a free market. If they got in charge of a government agency they could legally destroy their competition and make all consumers worse off as a result. That's all I meant to say.

>>2945161
>you admit it would solve most of the problems we face
for a very short period where poor people will become poorer and have shit working conditions and where we will miss out on many of their children becoming talented scientists. and after that experiment it is 100% guaranteed that the system will devolve into a crony capitalism. There is nothing to stop it from happening.
> a better answer than more of the same
I don't want more of the same, I want an actual regulation that isn't aimed towards the rich, but aimed against them. You seem to think that ANY regulation makes the rich even richer while most of the time it isn't true. look outside the United States and see places where regulations actually work for the good of the people and for the good of human development.
>Wal-Mart can't make me shop at their store if I don't want to in a free market
yeah good luck when Walmart kills the competition in your area. I am sure it would be worth driving miles away only to shop at a higher cost.

>>2945451
It appears we have very different conceptions of the market system and how it works. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
I have a less rosy view of regulators, but I suppose everyone's entitled to their opinions.
Still, I urge you to look more into free market thought and how corruption is born in government. Meltdown by Tom Woods is a good place to start, it deals directly with the 2008 crash.

The Michael Burry scenes were good just to get a rough idea of how he made his fortunes and dealing with all his angry investors who didn't get what he was doing.

Anything with the rest of the movie's cast being all SJW's about all these "fucking criminals!" I could have done without. As if Bear Sterns wanted to go out of business or something.

>>2943895
Another vote for Margin Call, solid film + Jeremy Irons has more acting in his pinky finger than half the cast of The Big Short.

File: 1499492084622.jpg (79KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1280x720px

>my quant
>your what?
>MY QUANTITATIVE

This movie spread the HODL meme

I think it was meant to show the corruption of wall street with a hint of subtle government collusion, but not enough for DC to turn on Hollywood.

Either way, it was a shit sandwich that taxpayers had to eat and government/banks got off Scott free.

File: 1501564013852.png (177KB, 629x350px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 629x350px

>>2945608
but anon, they all sold off their short positions at an economically opportune time.

>>2945608

Pretty sure it's the opposite

Mr. Hodl got fucking shrekt by Michael Scott at the end on the stage

>>2947051

Lucky for them the crash wasn't big enough to bring about popular uprising

The next one may be, story as old as time. When people are left with nothing but each other they get together and hunt down who did it

>>2943771
This was literally the worst movie ever made

>>2945043
Waaaaaah people are rich and they're not me!

Truly pathetic.