Except that @AOC asked for the $2,000 after the $600 payout was negotiated by House Democrats, Senate Republicans and the Trump regime. Which was never enough to start. Now Biden is still not providing the $2,000 when folks need the money.
The Member from New York is correct.
Dear @AOC: I've given you plenty of praise when deserved and criticism when deserved. You participating in this gaslighting is worthy of criticism.
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
You wanted $2,000. You got $600. Biden is pushing for another $1,400, bringing it to $2,000 total, which is what you asked for. https://t.co/50qQL9arUH
I'm sorry, but bullshit. There's two different arguments here:
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
1. $2,000 isn't enough
2. Biden "lied" or "went back on his promise"
#1 is debatable. #2 is utter bullshit. $2,000 is what was passed by the House. $600 is what passed the Senate. Adding $1,400 would = $2,000.
Again, you can argue that the total *should* be more than $2K, but you can't argue that Biden or anyone else lied about what the total from Dems would be. Read the rest of @Yair_Rosenberg's thread. Even BERNIE is praising the plan.
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
https://t.co/O5QFeUti1c
President-Elect Biden's COVID rescue plan will begin to provide our people with much-needed support, such as $2,000 direct payments and a $15 minimum wage.
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) January 15, 2021
I look forward to working with him and my colleagues in Congress to urgently provide bold relief to working families. pic.twitter.com/i8wS5180bB
Also, the politics of it are on AOC\u2019s side. Whatever Biden *meant*, a lot of people just heard that they would get a check with \u201c$2,000" on it. If it\u2019s only $1400 they will feel like he didn\u2019t do what he promised.
— whetstone (@whetstone) January 15, 2021
oh, he "should have just done" $2,000? With his magic wand? Has it occurred to you that he might have already discussed this with folks like Joe Manchin, Mitt Romney etc. who may have already stated point-blank that there's absolutely no way in hell they're going over $1,400?
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
He should just push for the $2,000 and avoid disappointing folks out there. https://t.co/k34aERrvEn
This is the key. The problem institutional politicians have is that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND that the public at large just don't follow things that closely. One thing that's sunk in is "$2000." Anything less than that, they won't get the nuances, they'll just feel wronged.
— WillyWicki (@WickiWilly) January 15, 2021
AND THIS IS WHAT GOES IN GDP FOR CONSUMER SPENDING! down 2.1% bad. bad. bad.
— Claudia Sahm RECOVERY FOR ALL (@Claudia_Sahm) January 15, 2021
PS revising down your Q1 forecasts now A LOT, you overly optimistic Wall Street.
PPS @BEA_News strips building material stores out and keeps auto parts for PCE. even so.https://t.co/XvwOT69sd2
You keep the promises made. https://t.co/M2YJmhqFS3
"$2000" is the closest Democrats have to a slogan right now. They actually put in work to get it fully into the zeitgeist. "If Ossoff and Warnock win, you'll get $2000" was the closing argument in a successful election. Why on EARTH would you even think about doing anything else?
— WillyWicki (@WickiWilly) January 15, 2021
To every one in my mentions pointing out what else is in the relief bill...
— Rebecca Nagle (@rebeccanagle) January 15, 2021
Do you really think people who were expecting $2000 checks and find out that it\u2019s less are going to think, hold on let me read the whole bill b4 I decide whether or not I like a smaller check? https://t.co/Lx0vUppkz6
That's how Joe Average thinks. We're not Joe.
https://t.co/aLRhHQHNGX
"For most folks" and you base this on what evidence, exactly?
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
I *always* assumed it was $2,000 total, not $2,000+$600. You may have assumed that, but I didn't, nor did many others.
It's possible you're correct, but it's also possible only a small % thought that.
I like how you assume I *don't* talk to "real live people" who "aren't in policy."
— Charles #GetCovered-ba (@charles_gaba) January 15, 2021
More from Finance
In a high IV environment or when the market is very volatile
— Subhadip Nandy (@SubhadipNandy16) January 21, 2022
" OTM options will behave like ATM options", one will get almost the same delta movement
Say we have two options, one 50 delta ATM options and another 30 delta OTM option. Normally for a 100 point move, the ATM option will move 50 points and the OTM option will move 30 points. But in a high volatile environment, the OTM option will also move nearly 50 points
To understand why this happens, first understand why an ATM option is 50 delta. An ATM option has the probability of 50% of expiring as ITM. The price just has to close a rupee above the strike for the CE to be ITM and vice versa for PEs
Now think of a highly volatile day like today. If someone is asked where the BNF will close for the day or expiry, no one can answer. BNF can close freakin anywhere, That makes every option of an equal probability of being ITM. So all options have a 50% probability of being ITM
Hence, when a huge volatile move starts, all OTM options behave like ATM options. This phenomenon was first observed in the Black Monday crash of 1987 at Wall Street, which also gave rise to the volatility skew/smirk