stephen_greet
Joined 7 years ago
Joined 7 years ago
It's totally fair to criticize subsidies that have been historically given major telecom companies when they failed to deliver (and they have). But, I don't think it's fair to say "historically the US government has given subsidies to telecoms that have failed to deliver, so you should keep doing that".
I mean, look at this Reddit thread. Somehow, Trump was the deterrent for 4 years despite his ongoing infatuation with an authoritarian dedicator.
Enough is enough, if you pretend both sides are the same you are the problem.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/t009rq/breaki... https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/02/22/trump-rea...
Since then I can't stop noticing the prevalence of alcohol in nearly all aspects of pop culture. Even innocuous seeming sitcoms have episodes where the whacky, lovable characters drink to excess and have to deal with a hangover.
You can walk through the assumptions you made then build up the components of those assumptions to arrive at an estimated impact.
Should someone who has no idea what they're doing be able to leverage themselves up 100X to buy a call/sell option by pressing a few buttons in Robinhood because they read about YOLO stock on Wallstreetbets?
As someone who has lost a lot of money by following the Reddit sentiment on an investment, I think the author's point here is fair.
This is not to say I wasn't an idiot. I was. But at a hard time in my life I needed more money so I gambled big and lost big. I worry other people will fall into the same trap.