I would not classify myself as anti-Israeli, fwiw. I just think wearing the military uniform of a foreign nation to your job governing our nation is despicable and borderline treasonous.
At this moment, there is so so much, publicly available information [1]
on the fact the SpaceX IPO is the biggest scandal in the long history of Wallstreet insiders fleecing the "Johns".
A scandal orchestrated and cheered on by the NASDAQ, as well as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan the underwriters, that if you spend any money on it, you deserve to be parted with your money.
And if you have a 401k...you are forced to buy no questions asked.
This will become such a disaster for retail, that hopefully Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan and the NASDAQ too, will spend their next 10 years in court defending action group lawsuits.
Two of those YouTube links are to Patrick Boyle who is a very respectable and knowledgeable ex hedge fund manager who dives DEEP into the topic while remaining entertaining. It’s a hilariously outdated take to say that YouTube content guarantees a lack of value or authority.
Patrick B is also a finance professor and most of his presentations (generally) maintain a level of academic rigour.
he got into the youtube during covid because he was posting YT vids for his students, and they just kept sharing them with everyone; he just ran with it
also: he talks deliberately slowly for subtitle and non-english speaker purposes; use the settings to speed him to x1.25 or x1.5 speed
That is leveraged speculation on a future listing before real float, real index flows, or real public market ownership exist. With a 20% premium that is evidence that the hype machine is working, and the best evidence of engineered retail FOMO.
Companies are innovating things that significantly enhance human capabilities and people will still find a reason to drag them down.
I am not a fan of either these companies. At the same time, I strongly disagree with these doomer scenarios as they are dangerous for progress of humanity.
For your own safety do not read or be advised by Ed Zitron. By all means skip the SpaceX ipo if you like: makes sense. But Ed is neither perceptive nor correct historically.
Case in point: a lockup period ending matching with mandated index fund buying is emphatically good for IPO buyers: it adds liquidity to a major cliff every IPO company faces: liquidity seeking by insiders on a schedule.
Now it may be bad for axed buyers like pension funds but buy side liquidity coming in to a company is always good for existing shareholders. Reading Ed would make you think the opposite.
> a major cliff every IPO company faces: liquidity seeking by insiders on a schedule.
LOL, so the insiders can dump their shares. This is exactly What Zitron says. Maybe we should have Mark Karpeles' or SBF's opinion on this matter, too.
The "political left" as you, apparently critically, call it, will be the 99,99999% not living in Elysium surrounded by robots, while running their own private Lebensborn program.... [1]
What could possibly trigger people to down vote this absolutely neutral, and 100% factual, normal post? Cant the moderators not explain, than down voting is not for things you don't agree with?
While factually correct, the US tax change was a huge driver of global layoffs. And the original comment didn’t just mention US tax policy as a source of layoffs, and the alternative source provided would apply globally.
The tax change impacted US company spend on their overseas businesses, so of course they’d be impacted, and it would indirectly impact overseas supplies of domestic business. Beyond that, it sets a tone and many in business are quick to follow the behaviors of others.
That's just silly. The fact that you disagree with an opinion does not mean that other people should not get the chance to be exposed to it. That's how echo-chambers form.
At the same time, the amount of disagreement an opinion gathers is an extremely important channel of information for determining whether you agree with someone's position. Silencing the disagreement with it gives an outsized benefit to harmful and malicious statements.
That's fine when a disagreement (or downvote) is just a signal on the post, but when it's used as a way to silence an opinion (e.g downvotes will hide it) that's even more harmful and malicious. Especially when the guideline is to downvote posts that are low-quality or don't conform to the rules, not posts you just merely disagree with or are against your belief system. Popularity should not be confused with truth.
reply