Who hype?

>>31552
Who are these numales?

>>31563
They all work in independent journalism mostly and make good money in private shit including shorting the stock on companies that start announcing SJW business initiatives.

Cernovich's site: dangerandplay.com
Johnson's site: gotnews.com
Johnson/Dickinson both run wesearchr.com

>>31552
DESU I don't want this place to be owned by any of them
The most preferable owner would be notch because he understands Chan culture

>>31552
Chuck Johnson would make a good owner.

What happened to Shkreli?

>>31571
Explain to a dumb dumb, what's shorting stock?

hiro has no intention of selling 4chan.

just because it's not profitable at the moment doesn't mean he's gonna bail like moot did.

Really anyone with a strong agenda is bad for the site. I can see why Hiroshima wouldn't be interested in selling.

>>33153
>notch buys 4chan
>server rewritten from scratch in java, is now inefficient as shit. Constant downtimes
>boards with high post numbers start corrupting text because everything is stored with floating point offsets
>/mc/ added for minecraft discussion, linked at the top of the official minecraft forums

>>33193
You're essentially betting that their stock will lose value when you short it. Your profit is determined by how much value the stock loses.

Basically, short the stock of a company that is about to do very badly.

>>33298
How does that work? I can understand the opposite (buy before it rises, sell afterwards) but how does the opposite work?

You can't sell before you buy, since there's no such thing as having a negative number of stocks.

I wish that faggots like this would fuck off and leave my anime website alone.

>>33292
Implying notch would do anything at all

File: 1365525628526.png (356KB, 709x541px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 709x541px

>>31552
Cernovich is pretty cool
he'd probably ban all the CTR shills

>>31552
nice shitpost i gotta say, approved by the double hashtag verified anon user

>>31552
how to kill 4chan in 0.002 seconds chrono

>>31552

Can't wait for 4chan to become a political soapbox and for it to be sold or tossed aside when the elections are over! Le based Chernovich!

File: CVelK20WUAEPVXh.jpg (69KB, 566x571px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 566x571px

>>31563
>cernovich
>numale

Pick one

>>33362
>censorship would make 4chan better

kys (kill yourself)

>>33559
>kys
>>>/facebook/

>>33559
>People who want censorship get censored
They're going to have to learn their lesson some time.

File: 1469163397787.png (451KB, 1000x721px) Image search: [Google]

451KB, 1000x721px

>>33571
>everyone who doesn't support my racist, rapist, fascist, autistic would-be dictator is one of those censorious sjws

diaf (die in a fire)

>>33301
When selling short you're betting that the price of the stock will go down. What basically happens is that your brokerage lends you the stock you're selling with the promise that you're going to give it back to them at a later point. So if the price of that stock goes down you can buy the stock at a lower price and give it back to your broker making money. However if the price goes up you have to buy it back at a higher price losing money.

>>33574
>racist, rapist, fascist, autistic would-be dictator
Are you talking about Hillary?

File: malakismeno.jpg (32KB, 620x412px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 620x412px

hes our guy

>>33592
so tl;dr

you loan stock X from Y
you sell X immediately
you re-buy X for a lower price
you give X back to Y
?

If so, then doesn't this basically rely on Y being stupid? Who would willingly participate in such a deal?

>>33592
>He thinks he knows about stocks because he saw the big short
You literally have an 8th grade understanding of what shorting is.

File: 1475947094438.png (20KB, 832x629px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 832x629px

>>33362
>>33559

why won't we ritchfags just open a "4chan foundation" and buy the site?

Hiroyuki doesn't want to sell. He wants to keep running this place and take donations. He's made that clear.

>>33558
Cernovich is a numale in denial.

You can easily tell they are retards by looking at their faces, stop giving attention to these mongoloids.

>>33292
>flocking to notch's latest creation, millions of children with autism start posting on 4chan

oh wait

>>33620
Y is usually the brokerage and have different ways of sourcing the stocks. They make money on transactions and can charge interest during the time you are borrowing the stock.

>>33623
Sorry if I gave a simple outline of what shorting is instead of writing an essay about it. There's no need to go into finer details here.

>>33606
>$9000 passes

>>34064
>Y is usually the brokerage and have different ways of sourcing the stocks.
How do they get their stocks in a way that does not involve money?

Hiro just shut all those cucks down with the donate page

>>34173
The brokerage either lends from their own inventory, from another customer of the brokerage, or they borrow from another brokerage. The first two options don't practically cost anything to the brokerage and the last one is probably pretty cheap since it happens both ways and it's in their best interest to not charge others out of their ass.

>>34363
1st option costs the brokerage something because the stock which they own decreases in value

2nd option doesn't change the situation because the broker will just be the middle man, Y would simply be “somebody else” in that case

3rd option also doesn't change the situation because that's a circular argument, with a broker being the middle-man

None of these “explanations” are really cutting close to the core of what's really happening. At the end of the day, if you're gaining money from a deal, then it means somebody else is losing money from the same deal.

Who is losing money in this system? And why?

>>34370
You're missing the point in this. Whoever is shorting is gambling that the value of that stock drops, it's not guaranteed to drop. If you don't plan on selling your stock then you don't lose money even if you lend it to someone who shorts it and it happens to lose value. You only lose money if you sell at a loss.

Shorting is more of a day trading tool than something that a buy and hold forever investor does. For the buy and hold forever investor slight day to day or month to month fluctuations in the stock price don't matter.

The person losing money when the price goes down during a short is the one who bought the shorted stock at the higher price when he could've gotten it cheaper at a later date. If the price goes up the loser is the one who shorted the stock.

In certain edge cases shorting can have pretty drastic results. See what happened to Volkswagen in 2008.

>>34379
That makes sense. So you're basically selling your patience? i.e. instead of day trading yourself and making the money that somebody else is making off the stocks you loan to them, you just don't bother and wait for the long-term increase instead? (With the money ultimately coming from the fact that you made money off idiots after selling the long-term position, assuming it rises in the long run)

>>34422
No. The money you get after selling your long held position comes from the company becoming more valuable and thus the stock becoming more valuable. Stock market isn't a zero sum game. Just because you get more money doesn't mean someone else has to lose money.

Also when held for long time dividends make you money, if the company releases dividends.

>>34441
>Stock market isn't a zero sum game. Just because you get more money doesn't mean someone else has to lose money.
That makes no sense. The money has to come from somewhere. You are trading your stocks against money in both directions.

If you buy at $50 and sell at $100, then you those $50 you are “winning” are coming from other people.

>>34441
>stock market isn't a zero sum game
Yes it is you fucking moron. If you make money, somebody loses money.

>>34465
except if the seller sold at a price point above what they bought, and the stock they sold you continues to grow

no loser in that situation. The seller missed out on potential gains but still made money.

If the stock market is a zero sum game then the economy is as well - which it isn't. Real growth happens that isn't just everyone trading around the same old resources.

>>34454
>The money has to come from somewhere.
This kind of thinking is why the Spanish empire fell. Value isn't like energy and matter. It can be created and destroyed.

>>34470
>except the stock they sold you continues to grow
>no loser in that situation

Do you even know what short selling is and how it works?

If the price grows the people who have a short position lose money.
>Continues to grow

You fucking moron. The stock grows at the expense of competitors stock because of competition. The economy is a zero sum game. The growth that you have is at the expense of someone/something else. If you have growth in the economy it's because
a) the country is consuming more due to population growth or growth in consumption
b) money is being pumped into the economy by foreign investment
c) the national debt is increasing because the fed is pumping money into the economy.

MONEY DOESN'T MAGICALLY APPEAR AND GROW FUCKTARD. THE ECONOMY IS A ZERO SUM GAME.

>>34472
>This kind of thinking is why the Spanish empire fell.
Not him but I'm not challenging what you posited but interested in what happened. How did that line of thinking bring down the Spanish empire?

>>34470
Think of it this way. Every dollar you spend on something, is a dollar you are depriving somebody of earning from you.

The economy is a zero sum game. Someone's gain is always someone's loss.

>>34477
Yeah, that's why the average citizen is your country is just as well-off as he was in 1953.

>>34478
Remember, they invaded the new world looking for gold and silver. That was based on a direct one-one interpretation of material and value correlation. They didn't really have a concept of things like inflation and their idea of things like improving land was more to do with taking advantage of value that was already there, just not being used. There wasn't any concept of human capital or anything like that. So their economic plan was "get lots of gold"and it worked great for a while but eventually the economy went to shit even though their indicators for economy (loadsa gold) were still strong.

It's also why we see really big coins (most famously the doubloons) coming out of Spain around the time that the empire was beginning to wane.

>>34482
If you flood the market with anything the value of it will drop. You might not realize it right away but sooner or later people will just stop exchanging goods for your (insert commodity here). You can't eat gold can you?

>>34482
Yeah that makes sense. The more gold you get the less value it is worth and you can't feed a population on gold coins. If they diversified their material goals it probably would have worked out better. Plus that whole the English destroying their Armada probably didn't help.

>>31552
Mike makes me cringe, he feels like such a fucking tryhard

>>34486
>Plus that whole the English destroying their Armada probably didn't help.
It was more of a nail in the coffin though. While it was a momentous event, it would have been insignificant of they'd invested in shipyards in New Spain, making use of both lumber and manpower there but using Spanish-educated professionals.

Brazilians did some of this, and the English kind of tried, but neither had the scale. Only the Spaniards had broad native support for their actions among a large population. And that's before getting into the intellectual value that was discarded for religious reasons.

>>34470
>except if the seller sold at a price point above what they bought, and the stock they sold you continues to grow
>no loser in that situation. The seller missed out on potential gains but still made money.
WHO THE FUCK IS HE SELLING TO?

That person lost money

moron

File: cat eating celery.gif (562KB, 250x188px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 250x188px

Mook isn't looking to sell 4chan. He declined Shkrelli and from what I heard, he declined Notch too. If I remember correctly, Shkrelli offered Hiro BILLIONS of dollars and he declined. I'm not sure what these guys could offer up that would make Hiro change his mind.

This is a nice /bis/ thread, way better than yet another /pol/ bait

>>34531
No, that person didn't lose money, they spent it on the stock, they got something in return.

Money itself doesn't have inherent value, otherwise Zimbabwe would the the richest country on earth.

>>34534
>Shkrelli offered Hiro BILLIONS of dollars
You're being hyperbolic.

>>34537
Yeah and when your stock loses value you lose money. It's just no realized immediately you fucking pedant.

>>34547
>you fucking pedant.
Are you accusing him of being pedantic or a necklace?

>>34549
why don't you look up the word in the dictionary, illiterate dumbfuck.

>>34547
The stock pays out dividends though.

>>34537
>No, that person didn't lose money, they spent it on the stock, they got something in return.
Not really. The stocks themselves are worthless, their worth ONLY comes from the fact that you can find other gullible retards to sell them to.

This is why you can't make money from penny stocks, after all. Even if your investment doubles from 1 cent to 2 cents, you can't actually find anybody who will buy that amount off you for 2 cents.

The system can't self-sustain. Whoever buys your $100 stock off you is at the risk of losing it all until they can find another idiot to make money off.

Somebody loses in the end. You can't escape it, it's a zero-sum game.

>>34552
>>34551

>>34550
Just trying to lighten the mood but you're set on insulting him and me over having a conversation. Maybe you should reevaluate your anger levels.

>>34551
>stock pays out dividends though
Yes, you spend $1000 to get $10 in dividends per year. In 100 years you'll get your initial investment back.

>>34544
I actually just went to look through my Skype logs to see what the price was just to double check. It was five million, thought it was more. Still, that's a lot of fucking money.

>>34581
>It was five million, thought it was more. Still, that's a lot of fucking money.
That's a bit more reasonable. Something Shkrelli could afford and still be considered an investment even if it were a tax write off for performing poorly.

>>34556
Or you hold it for a few years, gain from the dividends and then sell it back.

The stock represents the company, and you get part of it's gains.
Stock can often be overvalued, but it definitely does represent real value. In the same way houses can be overvalued(like in the 2008 crash), but they still represent real value.

>>34477
>THE ECONOMY IS A ZERO SUM GAME.

You should stop talking now. You obviously do not have any grasp of economics. Just because you browse /pol/ all day long doesn't mean you are suddenly qualified to speak about it just the same as someone with a degree and career in the field.

(HINT: you're arguing with people who do have a degree and career in the field.)

>>34552
All those people who bought Apple or Google 10 years ago are now a lot richer. Who gave them all those millions, who were the losers?

>>34589
you don't need to have a degree to realize "the economy doesn't grow" is a retarded statement

>>34592
Of course not. I'm just wondering where that guy got his "knowledge" from and why he is so adamantly spewing forth such idiotic things.

>>34591
The people who will be owning google/apple stock when it crashes/loses value

>>34422
Unlike buy and hold, shorting isn't something you can do long term for a stock. We're talking about days, maximum. The general premise is that if you think a stock is about to fall, you sell it. Even though you don't have it. And then soon you buy those stocks you sold before, hoping that when you buy them they'll be cheaper. Basically like a short term stock loan.

>Hey I'll sell you these stocks okay? BTW I don't have them yet, is it ok if I give them to you in a few days?
>Fine.

Now as an individual you can't do that because nobody will let you. You need to have someone back you up. Normally this would be a brokerage company who have shares in storage and will let you short. You can't just short anything you want in unlimited amounts. The broker will review your request to short and then give you the green light if they think their risk of getting screwed by backing you up is low.

If you short sell and fail to deliver there are all sorts of penalties. That's why the broker will not let you short sell unless they feel safe that you can afford to pay in case things go badly.

>>33160

H didn't have the shekeli

>>31552
Who?

>>34589
#notallpolacks

>>34531
It doesn't matter who he sells to. If the stock continues to grow after the sale both of them make money.

>b-but the buyer missed on potential gains
Maybe. But they probably needed that money for something else beforehand or didn't even have the money.

>b-but the seller is missing on potential gains
They probably need the money for something because they're selling. Still not losing money though.

>>34648
>>34552
Stocks represent ownership of the company. They are literally worth what people think the company is worth. You can't make money from penny stocks because no one wants to buy a company that isn't worth shit and doesn't have any sort of real business plan. If you buy shitty stocks you're at the obvious risk of losing money because it drops or people don't want to buy it. When company makes profit and it's value increases the stock increases.

>>34841
>Stocks represent ownership of the company. They are literally worth what people think the company is worth.
That's irrelevant. It doesn't matter what backs the value for the purposes of analyzing who's gaining and losing money. The company is independent.

>You can't make money from penny stocks because no one wants to buy a company that isn't worth shit and doesn't have any sort of real business plan.
Yes, but the reason why is much simpler. You can't make money from penny stocks because nobody wants to buy them. Period. That's because the only money you're making is from other people buying them.

You're missing the point of the stock exchange. The real reason stocks have value is because people see them as a tool for making money.

Do you think anybody gives a shit about the underlying companies? They are just proxies to enable the stock market's primary functionality. The value comes from people thinking they can use it to earn money, which is the only reason why people will buy your stocks. (Which is the only reason why you're earning money from the stock market - by exploting the fact that gullible idiots will also try and make money off it)

It's like that post about the guy who lost his life's savings trading bitcoin. Those are precisely the people paying for anything you earn from the bitcoin market.

>>34927
Holy shit this post is comedy gold.

>the company doesn't matter and is irrelevant
>nobody gives a shit about the underlying company
I see. So why does everyone at the stock market spend all their time analyzing the companies and their prospects? The value comes from the company behind that stock. Knowing what companies will do good and what won't however isn't easy. If it was everyone would be Warren Buffett.

>muh penny stocks
That's exactly what I said. No one wants to buy penny stocks because the company behind them isn't worth shit. Let's keep talking about real stocks here.

The idea behind stock exchange is to buy and sell shares of companies. The money is made by investing into companies that increase in value. The companies turn resources into something and then sell it at a higher price than the resources gaining profit. Profit on stock market isn't made out of others on the stock market.

The reason stocks like Apple and Google don't drop into pennies per share is because at that price someone could buy them, sell everything they have and keep the money making profit. Or if it didn't drop that drastically they could buy the entire company and keep running it making profit. The reason every stock is worth what it happens to be is because that's what people think the company is worth. Public companies have to release their finances on a regular basis and people can see exactly what they're worth at that moment. Why the prices fluctuate is because people speculate how the company will do in future. If they believe the company will do well in future they're willing to pay more for that stock as they're expecting the company to be worth more. If they're expecting the company to do worse they are willing to sell for lower to get rid of the stock. Then someone sees a possibility to make money by getting the stock at a discount. If your company isn't worth anything or in the brink of bankruptcy then getting rid of the shares can be hard.

File: 3D is wrong Cirno.jpg (86KB, 706x455px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 706x455px

>>31552
Who is this fagot and what is his position on 2D?

>>34961
>I see. So why does everyone at the stock market spend all their time analyzing the companies and their prospects?
Because that's the best way of analyzing how the value of a stock might change. The only thing that kills a stock is a company going bankrupt, which is why people try to sell stocks from companies that are doing bad. Everybody is trying to avoid being the “idiot” that pays for everybody else's riches by having stocks at the moment they lose their value.

The rest is a natural consequence.

>>34961
>The idea behind stock exchange is to buy and sell shares of companies.
So when's the last time you, as an owner of a stock, have influenced a company's decisions, used a company's resources, or obtained part of a company's property?

Precisely never? Right. Stock ownership gives you fuck all “shares” of a company. All it does is give you meaningless pieces of paper that others will buy off you because others will also buy them off them.

>>35158
People want the shares because owning the shares entitles you to the income of the company. This isn't very difficult.

If it comes to it, I'd rather Hiro just shut 4chan down than sell it to anyone. Unless it's back to moot.

>>35158
All the fucking time. It's just that one or even a thousand shares in large corporation buys you fuck all voting power. Any major owner of a public corporation, we're talking owning actual percentages of all the shares of that company have great deal of power in decision making. Public companies are democracies, it's just that each share holds one vote and having a million shares gives you million votes. Also in many cases there is voting stock and non voting stock so for example a family can keep the votes and determine what the company does.

The investing reason why people buy shares is that by owning a portion of the company you're entitled to portion of the profits. Those are called dividends. The more shares you own the more you're gonna get of those profits as they're paid per share just like the votes.

As anon already pointed out this isn't very difficult.

>>35158
>>35188
Also forgot to mention that the shareholders don't actually do the day to day decisions of any large company. It'd take too much time from them so they hire a CEO and set up a board of directors that handle the actual business operations.

>>35188
>The investing reason why people buy shares is that by owning a portion of the company you're entitled to portion of the profits.
But what portion of the stock's value are you entitled to per share?

If you buy $1000 in google stock, how many years do you have to wait until that breaks even?

>>35401
Whatever the people in charge of the company decide. However do take into consideration that any dividends paid out are money out of the company. Many companies, like Google, aren't even expected to pay dividends as people expect them to invest the money and grow the company, which would increase the stock value.

And your whole concept is wrong. You don't break even with the dividends. They're all profit. You still own just as many shares of the company and can sell them to regain your money. That is assuming you've bought a good company and the stock doesn't lose value. Now deciding what type of stocks to buy depends on your investment strategy. If you don't need or want dividends for cash flow and tax reasons it can be advantageous to get stocks that don't issue dividends. If you do need dividends for cash flow getting stocks that pay dividends is advantageous.

I stopped caring about other niggers buying 4chan after Shkreli dropped out.