501–510 of 638 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Interestingly enough, strong corporate governance and independent directors do not produce better returns. This is a central point in Eric Rees's book Incorruptible. https://leeds-faculty.colorado.edu/bhagat/bb-022300.pdf
guys a successful founder who lucked out and now has an academic hobby. I'd read other people if i were you.
Good thing there's a strong corporate governance model at SpaceX where the c-suite is fully accountable to an independent board of directors, who could use their majority voting power to remove that c-suite at will. Could you imagine the abuse of power that could happen if one person held over 50% of the voting power at such a company?
You dropped your "/s".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that this works by exploiting AMP is delicious.
Can you explain? I'm not sure how to Google that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
agreed. its almost like... we need a healthy mix of economic systems to prosper
I see socialism benefitting from capitalism, but how have capitalistic nations benefitted from socialist ones (other than a place to put military bases)?
the soviet union also pushed humans into space
cuba produces a ton of doctors who then go on to heal people too poor to train local doctors
in terms of, how does socialism benefit jeff bezos and elon musk and the actual capitalism of epsteins and the like using money as power mad exption from the law, i guess musk built space x on soviet rocket designs, but otherwise not a ton.
does it need to benefit the ultra wealthy capitalists to be good though?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Elon made inclusion in the index a prerequisite for trading the stock on the board Source? He may have claimed this. But he has no power to. Once a stock is publicly listed, every exchange can trade it. Where Musk had influence was on to whom he paid his listing fee.
"SpaceX stock is expected to be listed on the Nasdaq. To secure such a high-profile listing , While listing requirements remain unchanged, Nasdaq recently amended its index-inclusion rules to accommodate companies like SpaceX when they go public." https://www.forbes.com/sites/garthfriesen/2026/04/25/spacex-... Notice a listing on the board and an inclusion in an index are two different things. Nastaq changed the inde…
Nobody contested this. You said inclusion was “a prerequisite for trading the stock on the board.” That is incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The reason you know the people complaining the most about this aren’t serious is that they don’t lead with crsp and vti. They did change their rules, they did it fairly specifically for spacex and it did drive inclusion in a major index fund (perhaps the biggest one). Now me personally, as a holder of vti I am good with the change and my included exposure to spacex. Further I think mostly complaining about the inclus…
To the extent there is potential bullshit, it is here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> offload an empty bag onto retail investors This was a popular meme on Twitter and Reddit and YouTube, granted. The math doesn’t make sense with an index like the Nasdaq 100. But I’ll admit it’s a good story. > SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy This is also true of every defence contractor.
Colonies on Mars is a good story Super intelligence is a good story These companies are built on little more than "a good story" for politicians to sell to voters ..."i voted in Congress for that!" You're arguing semantics Economic math is being leveraged against innumerates as euphemism and obfuscation of same old avarice and political corruption. Biology is self selecting. There's no using rhetoric to wave off the…
That’s a new use of that term!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, because capitalism in it's purest form would never have companies form monopolies and lobby governments for favorable legislation.
Where does capitalism mandate corruption? Yes, it is not realistic to assume there is no corruption, but capitalism in and by itself does not mandate corruption. Obviously this all falls apart when capitalism can buy legislation. We are seeing how the USA is currently eroded by a few oligarchs.
non-corrupt competitors will be beaten every time by corrupt ones
The title is quite biased, it's telling us what to think even before we read the article