Skip to main content

in reply to Chris Remington

I don't think we should accept those people's money anymore - what are these billions, trillions, gazillions, schmoozillions even supposed to be. I'm happy to trade in sea shells or your kiddo's drawings with you instead if you have an honest face!
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to schmorp

New racism based trade economy?
in reply to No_Eponym

It’s like one of those filenames: final_final_draft_new_new_final_final_review_final_new_report.odt
in reply to Powderhorn

😄 exactly. Totally forgot about sprinkling in a few numbers.
in reply to Chris Remington

That's alright. The orange turd will cover it.
in reply to Hairyfishnuts

You mean ordinary Americans will. It's not like he'll pay anything.
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to floofloof

I kinda thought that was implied, my bad.
in reply to Chris Remington

Biggest pump and dump scheme yet... Now come the gov bailout to keep the company afloat while dismantling NASA further
in reply to Che Banana

I was looking at this a while back, and I don't think insiders can sell for a while yet, but I think this really has been a gift to short sellers.

In the end, I didn't end up buying into the IPO because it seemed overpriced, and while I do like the idea of some of the business (Starlink) I don't understand why it's got to come with a fucking social network of all things.

in reply to fonix232

Don't be sad, I shorted it but didn't put waaaay enough money into that endeavour to make me rich.
in reply to fonix232

I mean this market didn't just stay irrational for five years past due, it's still wildly irrational.
in reply to Chris Remington

its just absolutely crazy to buy shares in a company where special super shares where made to make sure anyone buying shares could never own or control the company.
in reply to HubertManne

Is it? That is, if i were to own a public company, the only way i would ever allow anyone else to own a part of it. It is my company, i don't want fucking shareholders pressure me for more profits and shortsighted decisions. If the vultures want a share of the profits they get just that, not a voice at the table.
in reply to GregorGizeh

That is literally the entire point of shares. You buy a percentage of the company and give them money so they can use that money to expand and develop.

Why would I give a company money if I don't get a percentage of that company? It's not a fuckin donation.

in reply to Pyr

You give that money to the Corp to get profits in return. Not a say in how the company is run, at least youre not supposed to for healthy business operations.
One of, if not the biggest reason that for example steam continues to win is just they are being not overtly greedy and shortsighted. That is obviously a much healthier business model.
in reply to GregorGizeh

i were to own a public company

It is my company


No, by definition it is not, if you sell part of it to the public and make it a public company.

in reply to Kazumara

... If i had a company and it were successful, and i decided to go public, i would only issue that kind of voteless share or whatever they are called, so that i would be protected from shareholder pressure to some extent. Was that not clear somehow? Or did you just want to go for the snark
in reply to GregorGizeh

No I'm just pointing out that your view on who should morally control the company is wrong from the start.
in reply to Kazumara

How so? Shareholders are the worst cancer on the economy, but at the same time hard to eliminate without a revolution.

The proper order should be that people invest in a company they believe will do well, not because they seek to exert control over it. If you do not believe the company is operating in a profitable manner you should not buy, or sell your, shares.

You state this is wrong. Why? In my opinion, if we must have institutionalized gambling, we should seek to keep it from exerting undue influence, even in the shareholders own long term interest. Of course this would not allow the leadership to just do whatever with the money, reporting and oversight should if anything be improved upon.

in reply to GregorGizeh

Companies aren't required to go public in the first place so it’s a rather moot point. They actively choose to be in the situation where they are beholden to shareholders.

If you owned a company you could just, like, not go asking rich people for money to grow or whatever (what IPO is, basically) and grow naturally on your own merits. Then you don’t even have to worry about what kind of votes people might have.

Personally I think the stock market should just be banned outright. Go back to pensions or some sort of UBI or even have companies pay into universal pensions or something, whatever, but tying retirement to gambling needs to stop, and the entire gambling on the economy thing is clearly not working well overall what with it being pretty easy to manipulate, to the destruction of all, and all..

This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to GregorGizeh

Non-voting common stock is a scam pulled by these fucking billionaire founders to reduce public participation, and concentrate their power, even as they use other's money for their pet projects.

If a company just needs to take up money for an investment, it can issue bonds. Then it gives up no control, but enters into a fair agreement with someone loaning them capital at fixed rates, with no pretense of ownership.

If they sell shares, that is supposed to represent partial ownership and allow all the owners to collectively decide on strategy. It also brings with it the right to recall board members who go insane, like Musk or Zuckerberg. To prevent that these scumbags issue non-voting stock, or stock that has such reduced voting rights as to be essentially useless. Like SpaceX recently, all the IPO shares (class A) carry a tenth of the voting rights compared to the ones they kept (class B).

in reply to GregorGizeh

Yes. I realize someone else explained it to you but you as the owner would love to sell it that way but others as a buyer would be nuts to buy your shares. Its not crazy to sell shares that way its crazy to buy them.
in reply to GregorGizeh

If you're in a position to dictate what shareholders get, you have no real reason to go public. Just keep it privately owned.

You go public to raise funds. The least reasonable thing to do to someone is ask them for money with a pinky promise that they might make a profit. Usually, those people are going to want something in return, like a say in how their money is spent.

in reply to HubertManne

Extremely funny to think that stocks primarily have value and that people buy stocks for the shareholder votes.
in reply to Dragging up again

Their value is in ownership which includes say in how its run. I mean stocks have been nuts for a while P/E and P/B and D/E and D/A are things of the past.
in reply to HubertManne

Not really. I've never been to a shareholder meeting and never will. I buy stocks to turn a profit from dividends and appreciation not to get a chance to micromanage the company.
in reply to InevitableList

fair enough but if shareholders don't control the company then there might be to much of a need for the owners salary for dividends. which is why you don't buy that crap.
in reply to Chris Remington

Correction: Lost a trillion in speculative value. There's a difference
in reply to krisevol

Any time you attempt to convert it into a usable asset, including using it as collateral or citing it as an asset for loans or investment capital solicitation, it should be taxed. Once someone accepts its value in exchange for something, it's no longer speculative.
in reply to krisevol

If you say it's worth a trillion, then you should put your money where your mouth is
in reply to Chris Remington

I made 29% within a week shorting SpaceX already, should I hodl or sell my position at some point? Do we think it'll ever recover?
This entry was edited (1 week ago)
in reply to Helix 🧬

If it's like Tesla stock, it will behave completely irrationally. Though, I guess most of the stock market is irrational now.
in reply to sobchak

Now? The whole thing has always been based on human feelings, that's the point. I think you mean it is more volatile now? Or maybe it changes more radically?
in reply to Helix 🧬

We're talking about a business led by the richest person in the world who has already made it entirely clear he can buy his way to anything he desires. 30% is a tidy sum, I'd lock it in and call it a day.
in reply to Chris Remington

I really liked SpaceX as a rocket company, why did all that AI BS had to be attached to it??
in reply to AlexisFR

Because it was the only way for the Nazi Elon Musk to effectively launder money and glaze over his repeated failures in a way which still preserves his wealth.
in reply to Chris Remington

I'm not gonna care about this unless it gets bad enough to get musk to kill himself.
in reply to lightnsfw

He got what he wanted: going down as the world's first trillionaire.
in reply to Chris Remington

Lockups start expiring next month. They've still only floated less than 5% of the company! Buckle up buttercup.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=CCzD3ONQ…