> Again we see a country banning shorting. The question must be asked why they need to ban it, unless there is negative consequences for having shorting in the first place.
They ban it to satisfy their emotional needs for a scapegoat. Next they will burn a witch.
> If any stock is targeted enough it can be sold down to oblivian just about. its not about actually investing its just who has the most money, which side they want to play.
If this really is what happens then what is being sold short would be undervalued. All it would take is other equally well capitalised market participants to buy them. All this short selling blame game assumes there is some group of uber-traders that are always right and rule the markets. Its just does not stand critical analysis.
> What would happen if there was no shorting. People would buy and sell what they actually have. Like every other commodity in the world, shorting is for greed imo.
Well much the same overall price action exists in things that don't have short selling or even futures markets. So the answer is short selling makes next to no difference.
However a problem is when short selling dominates the entire maket. And that occurs with one financial instrument: MONEY.
Whenever someone borrows money and spends it they are short selling money. Do people borrowing money they don't even own and spending it "drive the price of money down"? Under the fractional banking system the borrowed money does not even exist. It is therefore effectively naked short sold. YOU GOT THAT? Every house loan is effectively a naked short sale of money. With the banks making money on money that doesnt exist. Now what happens when the banks cant cover their massive naked short position? The government rushes in to bail them out and everyone applauds while blaming "the short sellers".
