111–120 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As for the decimal mark (comma), it's most of the world really. This has nothing to do with grouping in numbers. I find both types of thousands separator (, or .) misleading, pointless and not nice at all. But maybe that's because I grew up in a country that used neither of those.
I have to deal with a lot of millions and billions in work (reinsurance). Thousands separators are so essential to me!!
"Current Google Share Price : 495.01 USD" This hasn't been updated since GOOG was a bit more than a third of what it is now. But if they actually own 819 shares that is almost a million dollars of stock right now. Edit: http://gwei.org/pages/google/legalletter1.html
So has it been operating all this time since 2006? Most interesting would be a graph of proportion of Google owned. Are they gaining or losing ground toward their goal of getting it all. I could see them gaining at an ever diminishing rate. While this is probably fraud, it's preying on advertisers, which I'd be prepared to allow provided it did the advertising industry permanent harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So has it been operating all this time since 2006? Most interesting would be a graph of proportion of Google owned. Are they gaining or losing ground toward their goal of getting it all. I could see them gaining at an ever diminishing rate. While this is probably fraud, it's preying on advertisers, which I'd be prepared to allow provided it did the advertising industry permanent harm.
Why would it be fraud? It sounds to me like they're using their advertising revenue to buy Google shares. What's wrong with that?
They are not really ads that are viewable by consumers. Most likely bot traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You didn't refute his point at all.. He said > You are correct about the empirical facts (there exist some companies don't currently pay dividends), but theory is needed to understand that if those company's never paid dividends, they would be worthless. Which means that EVENTUALLY, these companies will either pay dividends or their stocks are worthless. You pointed out companies that currently do not pay out dividen…
> Which means that EVENTUALLY, these companies will either pay dividends or their stocks are worthless. Yes, And that is false. IT IS FALSE. There are companies that never pay dividends, but because of continuous growth, are regarded as attractive investments (Berkshire Hathaway is just one of many examples). To avoid any possible confusion, I posted a list of such companies. And I have just added another list below.…
> Yes, which means you downvoted based on the fact that you disagreed with the views I expressed, not based on whether I contributed to the conversation, a violation of HN's voting guidelines.
That.. is not at all what I said, which baffles me as you quoted me yourself. I said the way you presented it, not what you presented. "The OP was flat wrong, and I was flat right". Again, super aggressive. You're not even attempting to understand others anymore, as evidenced by what we said about downvoting.
Plus, if you actually did read the HN guidelines, you would see something like > When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
Some of your comments, not just this one, clearly violate that.
If you want to have a serious discussion regarding the value of stocks in society, then message me. If not, I'll just stop replying because it's not worth my time otherwise.
EDIT: I forgot to say that you're looking at transactions at the micro level. You need to look at the grand scheme of things. Why buy stocks at all? What if we took these companies histories to a decade from now? Two decades? Half a century? To infinity? Look at the theory behind what drives the market, not simply what today's market price is. You buying stocks to sell for higher doesn't refute the theory behind the entire system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be fraud? It sounds to me like they're using their advertising revenue to buy Google shares. What's wrong with that?
"We generate money by serving Google text advertisments [sic] on a network of hidden Websites." They are not really ads that are viewable by consumers. Most likely bot traffic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As for the decimal mark (comma), it's most of the world really. This has nothing to do with grouping in numbers. I find both types of thousands separator (, or .) misleading, pointless and not nice at all. But maybe that's because I grew up in a country that used neither of those.
I have to deal with a lot of millions and billions in work (reinsurance). Thousands separators are so essential to me!!
1E+03 = one thousand 1E+06 = one million 1E+09 = a thousand millions / an american billion 1E+12 = an american trillion / an european billion
.. and that's as far as you need; the GDP of most countries is on the order of 1E+12 or 1E+13
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to deal with a lot of millions and billions in work (reinsurance). Thousands separators are so essential to me!!
Don't you find exponent notation to be neater? 1E+03 = one thousand 1E+06 = one million 1E+09 = a thousand millions / an american billion 1E+12 = an american trillion / an european billion .. and that's as far as you need; the GDP of most countries is on the order of 1E+12 or 1E+13
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have to deal with a lot of millions and billions in work (reinsurance). Thousands separators are so essential to me!!
Don't you find exponent notation to be neater? 1E+03 = one thousand 1E+06 = one million 1E+09 = a thousand millions / an american billion 1E+12 = an american trillion / an european billion .. and that's as far as you need; the GDP of most countries is on the order of 1E+12 or 1E+13