491–500 of 638 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're forgetting that whenever the incentives lead to bad places it isn't True Capitalism (tm).
True Capitalism looks a lot more like socialism than many would like to admit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does the relative level of government spending versus taxation have to do with whether businesses will self-regulate? You're just spewing non sequiturs here.
They said we live under true capitalism right now we I’m clearly showing we do not. Not to mentions the US is far from “self regulating” there are millions of words of regulation in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they should buy a broad-market fund. Like a Russell 1000 fund? Oh wait...
> Like a Russell 1000 fund? Yes. A fund that doesn’t choose what is and isn’t a good investment. Total market means total market. If you don’t like that, the S&P 500 is bigger than those for a reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, because the guy buying your bananas is able to make banana-buying decisions for next week based on the price you give him. You’re not going to make up a silly low number because you actually have to buy the bananas yourself at some point, and you help price discovery because now that guy isn’t buying bananas at a higher price than someone is willing to sell them for.
Just as a thought experiment, would you say there are any (societal) negatives to the possibility of thr price of bananas (or the share price of spacex) being able to fluctuate wildly based on semi-abstract economic manipulations, like shorts and futures and such. What I'm getting at is when does it go from investing, "I think this entity is going to take my money and use it to build a profitable factory that will th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Idk, I kinda agree with Matt Levine. The purpose of these ETFs is conceptually to track the "largest X companies", so including SPCX is just staying true to that. If there's an issue I think it's earlier in the IPO pipeline.
But if SpaceX valuation drops by 2/3 before settling into a steady state, does that not mean that SpaceX is not one of the "largest X companies" but rather was overvalued? The entire reason for these seasoning periods is to give the market time to determine what the company is actually worth to the market itself. Bypassing those rules to get it in earlier says to me that they don't believe it will settle at a price n…
A stupid/naive question. Why does this affect SpaceX? They have their money(The IPO) Any third party trading value does not change that. Sure there may be individuals, officers of SpaceX who hold these instruments who will be negatively affective, but the company itself? My best guess, it makes it harder to get loans in the future.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm old enough to remember they weren't just buying and selling corporate bonds like most of the bond market. They were a hedge fund that used massive leverage to exploit tiny arbitrage opportunities between correlated securities. There may be important factors that the bond market isn't aware of, just like most of them didn't know about the problems with mortgage-backed securities in 2008. But anything you and I are…
> But anything you and I are aware of, they probably are too. This is something that seems like it should be true but the subprime crisis (which didn't at all come out of the blue — anyone with any instinct at all should have understood when they first saw someone get given insane mortgages) argues against.
If you want to suggest the subprime crisis as a mechanism for SpaceX bonds getting mispriced, you need to propose a model for how bond evaluators could be operating under a perverse incentive to under-rate it and somehow reap profits from doing so.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
uh oh I think you lost the thread of metaphor there.
how embarrassing! Look, your joke was "If it's only 1.2%, hey, that's not that much, just give it to me for free!" We don't have to believe SPCX is worth whatever it's trading at today, but that 1.2% isn't simply being given away. Under capitalism, money is exchanged for goods and services.
They are not questioning money exchange, they are questioning the "only" part, claiming this is significant.