191–200 of 334 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a lot of the market is people pointing at other people as if they had done the due diligence that they couldn't be bothered with, and those people pointing back.
That’s why a scam startup is able to rocket as soon as 1 named investor signs on. See the juice squeezing bag company etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At what point does information such as this become "insider information" and illegal to share? These "eyes and ears" need to have their taxes audited...
Big investors have a pass for doing shady stuff. They can do insider trading (up to a point where it's not considered insider trading), they can break the SEC rules to artificially reduce the share price of a company so they can buy it or drive them to bankruptcy, but a normal person like me and you can't do these things, because we don't have the money to get around with it. Big market actors are just institutionali…
I'm writing a long form article about this idea, how in America we do stuff like private prisons, allow pollution, the "family" court system and social media for kids even though some countries can easily fix these problems we refuse to address them because just TOO much money is being made (at least that's how the divorce industry was explained to me).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The stock price doesn’t seem to be hurting pre-market at all. Big investors will have eyes and ears inside the IRS, so will have known for years about this already.
I think a lot of the market is people pointing at other people as if they had done the due diligence that they couldn't be bothered with, and those people pointing back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The stock price doesn’t seem to be hurting pre-market at all. Big investors will have eyes and ears inside the IRS, so will have known for years about this already.
At what point does information such as this become "insider information" and illegal to share? These "eyes and ears" need to have their taxes audited...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It seems like Microsoft believes they can settle for something much lower. The stock price doesn’t seem to be hurting pre-market at all Given the Stock Markets inability to predict the Twitter buyout despite public documents stating Elon Musk's contract to buy at $54.20/share throughout 2022, I'm pretty sure that stock market investors are literally illiterate, unable to read public documents. Anyone who bought Twi…
I don't think it's quite that simple. After the offer was submitted he famously tried hard to NOT buy Twitter. In the end his attempts to back out of the purchase because of the supposed undisclosed bot problem were thrown out in court, but iirc he could still have pulled out by paying "only" a couple billion dollars in fines or something. I guess it comes down to "do you believe Elon Musk when he says something" and…
That clause was clearly for things outside of Elon (or former Twitter)'s control. Like if a government stepped in to stop the purchase.
Elon never had a good counter argument. So it was simply a case of those who were able to read the public court documents vs the ones who believed Elons out-of-court media blitz.
Alas, the only arguments that matter in court are the arguments that are filled in court. None of the discussion points you talked about even made it to the case, they were laughed out long before Elon gave up and bought Twitter.
------
Reading. It's a superpower. That's what the past year has taught me. A surpring number of people cannot read and will believe falsehoods even if they contradict written and agreed upon documents.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which cases is it legal?
Pretty much all cases? If you're an institutional investor you can just call the CEO or investor relations and ask them tough questions about their business. Sometimes you can figure out within minutes that the CEO is a bozo. You can visit their offices and talk to the employees. Are they smart and passionate and hard-working, or demoralized and looking to jump ship? You can also derive material information for insta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope (and think) that laws are judged primarily by their text and entirely so when it can be determined that the facts match the text even if many of us wish the text was different in light of these specific facts. Criminal trials carefully lay out how the state believes the actions of the accused meet each required element of the crime. They don’t get to say “Foo definitely killed Bar. The law intends for people t…
> If you rear-end me while I’m stopped at a light, your intent doesn’t matter, only your actions. If you fail to stop for a school bus displaying red stop lights, your intent doesn’t matter. Huh? In both of these examples, intent 100% matters. If I rear ended you because I had a medical emergency vs I was texting on my phone vs I had a bout of road rage and wanted to kill you vs I know who you are and you’re sleeping…
You're absolutely right that overt intentional assault is different than an accidental collision.
Yea hello it’s Mr Smith here from the tax department. I’ve just been reviewing your file and it seems that you are a little short in your tax payments by…… let’s seeeee ……. ummmm …… yes, $29,000,000,000. Can you pay it now please?
"We take credit cards. Now now, Mr. Nardella, no need to get... You say we should ask Mr. Ballmer instead? I'm afraid it doesn't really... Yes, credit cards, cheques, bank transfers. My son does everything with his app, these days, maybe you have one...? I see. So when should I call back? Never, you say? Oh."