131–136 of 136 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Parag sold to Elon, and he got a great return for shareholders by selling at far above market value. Jack doesn't do anything but meditate and grow a beard like he's young Steve Jobs. Why the board let him be CEO when he didn't do any apparent work is a different question.
Jack is 46 years old... not really young at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no fundamental reason to be upset with short sellers; they can be honest or dishonest about their motives just as holders of long positions can be. When they are honest and open, they provide a service to the community in the same way that honest & open holders of long positions do.
The short position is fundamentally the belief a venture will fail and historically there is three ways for that to be a successful bet; 1) be lucky 2) do your research thoroughly and then be lucky or 3) cause that venture to fail. So in this case your defense is limp wristed, you ask only 'well what about' without ever answering the core qualm.
This mirrors precisely the ways for a long position to succeed. A holder of shares in a venture can work to cause that venture to be successful. This is pretty common, in fact.
OK now do Western Union. Full disclosure: I'm heavily invested in SQ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether sanctions evasion is good depends principally on which side of the sanction line you fall.
"Aggression" is an objective measure. There is no subjectivity who starts a war and wo is in another country's territory. Those are observable facts. And obviously Russia did not believe Ukraine to be a threat - or they would have not done this haphazard invasion with too little preparation and too few soldiers, so there is no excuse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm no expert, but restricting the flow of goods seems both necessary and sufficient. The war machine doesn't run on money. A state can always find a way to hide the transactions, on the other hand.
> The war machine doesn't run on money. I think it might, particularly where the war machine has a partner willing to sell it arms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The war machine doesn't run on money. I think it might, particularly where the war machine has a partner willing to sell it arms.
The partner can sell arms on a loan. There's a million of possible arrangements.