So in order to short a stock, I borrow it from someone else, sell it, and then buy it back when it's time to return what I borrowed? The person who lends it makes money because the borrower pays a fee then. So neither party loses money, right? The lender got a fee and still has the stock, while the borrower made money on the difference in stock price. But someone must be losing money in this deal. I guess thats whoever bought the share that went on to lose value, right? Because these people are making money without actually producing anything, someone must be losing money...
Here's something I don't understand. Why would anyone have taken the opposite side of a short contract? If I understand this, in a short contract, person A will get money from person B and promise B that they will give them a share at a later date. Since with Gamestop anyone would expect its value to decrease, why would person B take this deal? Because for everyone who shorts a stock there must be someone who agrees to pay to have that stock at a later date, right?
Does anyone know if there has ever been a successful revolution without the support of the military, or better yet against opposition from the military?
I think people who say this just think about communism as being central planning of the economy. Theyre not thinking about abolishing private property or dictatorship of the proletariat or any of that
Edit: Also, I think it makes sense that people have this idea, because the countries that are supposedly communist basically have central planning by the state, and little of the other things. If we think about China, they don't really have a worker controlled economy, they work a lot and are not allowed to form unions and so on. I even personally get the impression that their successes in dealing with covid came from central planning and not communism.
Btw I basically haven't read any theory, feel free to educate me
I attempted to read this piece, and although I zoned out for most of it I didn't find anything explaining why not abolishing the aristocracy altogether
Im curious what could possibly be the reasoning for that
Why do you say that China will never be a hegemon?
They seem to have bought so much important infrastructure here in europe, like docks and the portuguese electricity company, for instance.
No, but I wrote this without really thinking about it tbh Why do you think it's a bit?