It's a combination of these 2 thoughts.Grandma wrote: ↑Thu Jan 28, 2021 3:43 pm I was confused because it sure seemed backwards. I thought the "little guys" were the winners and the "big guys" were the losers this past week.
You have $100. You are free to invest that $100 as you choose. You have $100,000,000 you are free to invest that $100,000,000 as you choose. To me, that's fair. Is it fair that your $100 investment doesn't "manipulate" the market as much as $100,000,000 does? That's for you to decide but I don't think it's unfair.
You should be "free to invest", and that's the game that's been turned off. The investors with $100,000,00 short sold their shares to the guys investing $100. Now you have other people investing in the same shares, whether it be $100, $1,000, $10,00, and there aren't anymore shares. All of a sudden all the shares are taken, and the guys investing $100,000,000 left paying interest on the shares they shorted, at an even higher price.
Limiting transactions to position closing only is the exact opposite of free trade and being "free to invest as you choose". Resulting in a declining price, because the lack of purchasing demand. Fucking over the "little guy" who is hoarding these stocks that the "big guy" chose to let go.