Some guys from Reddit bought a bunch of shares in dead companies and ruined “greedy” hedge funds for shorting those companies. Who is more in the right in this situation?

Anal Magician

Those who leave the casino and go play chess are more in the right.

I have already analyzed the topic of market manipulation, and even more specifically, the pump and dump scheme. My reflections boiled down to the fact that if traders are doing this, it is a strategy as risky as any other. And attempts to regulate it are exactly the same kind of market manipulation. So, if a trading platform in principle implies the possibility of closing trading to prevent someone from making a profit, then there is no point in being on such platforms. It’s not surprising that the Reddit guys eventually ignored the stocks and went to trade crypto. Over time, the smartest among them will even understand which crypto is better for buying and holding, and which is only for speculation. But on crypto exchanges, at least their toy won’t be taken away, even if there is a danger that they might upset someone with it.

I am reading the translation of The Mechanics of Freedom. Very interesting, thank you. My English is at the level of reading an English-Russian dictionary, so this will not be criticism, but rather a question. At the end of the chapter Rare means exhaustible, the “problem of abundance” is mentioned. This really triggered me. Abundance is the best thing humanity can hope for, and calling it a problem is blasphemy.

Then I remembered that “false friends” of the translator exist, and the meaning of “problem” is much broader than the Russian “проблема” — it can be a task, a question, or even a situation.

I’m still triggered. I want to understand: is this just a translation inaccuracy, or does the author really think that abundance has some kind of problems?

Dnar

From the text, it seemed quite obvious to me that the author is being ironic about leftists who claim that the emergence of abundance will cause problems for the existence of private property. Yes, indeed, many things that were once paid will become free, and this only means a transition to other monetization schemes, as we see, for example, in the case of copies of texts. Property as a concept will not disappear. It is precisely competition in the production of goods and services that drives their price down so much that it can even become zero. But in order for the problem of how to get money for something cheap and easily accessible to arise in the first place, capitalism is exactly what is needed. This paradox is, in fact, the theme of the chapter.

Should abortion be banned or not?

I have analyzed this topic — once and twice. I can only add to what was previously stated that the question of whether one should have an abortion is as unpleasant as the question of whether one should perform anesthesia by hitting the back of the head with a mallet. As long as we do not have available methods of anesthesia that do not cause a concussion as a side effect, there are a huge number of situations in which such a barbaric method would be better than none at all. But when science has already stepped far enough forward, mallet anesthesia may only be required in a very exotic situation. The same goes for preventing the birth of a child. Should it be banned to surgically remove it from the body without a chance of survival for the fetus? As long as there are no less barbaric methods at hand, there are a huge number of situations in which it is better to do it this way. But when science gives us a wide variety of contraceptive means, surgical abortion becomes a much rarer procedure than it could be.

How should one treat those who, on principle, force people not to use protection and to give birth? Offer them appendicitis treatment without anesthesia.