Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 150 posts

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#21

Post by tanderson92 »

jackweirdy wrote: post #14
cryptrash wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, most billionaires have no idea what they're talking about. All luck. Yup. /s

Donald Trump would have more money now if he put his inheritance in an index fund. http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index funds without exception for my investments)

Another thing bothers me: you're supposed to look at risk/return, not simply return, in evaluating investment strategy.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#22

Post by at-fates-hands »

manicdee wrote: post #13
at-fates-hands wrote: post #7

I stopped reading Ars Technica when they gave Trump an F on technology issues and Clinton an overall B+, including a B- on "privacy and security". I mean, how much more partisan can you get than that? The woman was under investigation for leaking classified emails and using an unprotected email server for fucks sake. When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriousl…

What came of the investigation? Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged. And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.

>> And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.

This actually gave me a good laugh thank you. Invoking Bush close to a decade after he left office while simultaneously giving his own candidate a pass for using an unsecured email server.

The funny thing is all you see and hear on hacker news is stories about companies getting hacked all the SV techies calling them stupid and morons. Then you have their candidate doing the same thing and suddenly its ok??

I never understood that logic.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#23

Post by at-fates-hands »

Jtsummers wrote: post #16
at-fates-hands wrote: post #7

I stopped reading Ars Technica when they gave Trump an F on technology issues and Clinton an overall B+, including a B- on "privacy and security". I mean, how much more partisan can you get than that? The woman was under investigation for leaking classified emails and using an unprotected email server for fucks sake. When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriousl…

0) That wasn't Ars' analysis, that was their reporting. [0] was the one that did the analysis. 1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions. 2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis. 3) The actual report card for those interested [1]. [0] http://www.engine.is [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5716817…

>> The analysis/grading was based on policy positions.

This doesn't sound like policy positions to me:

Candidates were ranked on "privacy and security" based on whether they understood the importance of strong encryption and supported reforming privacy and surveillance laws.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#24

Post by Jtsummers »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #23
Jtsummers wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0) That wasn't Ars' analysis, that was their reporting. [0] was the one that did the analysis. 1) The analysis/grading was based on policy positions. 2) You're just wasting your keypresses if you honestly can't tell the difference between reporting someone else's work and their own analysis. 3) The actual report card for those interested [1]. [0] http://www.engine.is [1] https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5716817…

>> The analysis/grading was based on policy positions. This doesn't sound like policy positions to me: Candidates were ranked on "privacy and security" based on whether they understood the importance of strong encryption and supported reforming privacy and surveillance laws.

Did you read the pdf I linked? Read the parts where they explain the grades they assigned?

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#25

Post by paulddraper »

tanderson92 wrote: post #21
jackweirdy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump would have more money now if he put his inheritance in an index fund. http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index f…

Investing in the S&P 500 delegates the "actual wealth creation" to others by providing them with the means.

And they, on average, would have done a little better than Trump did.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#26

Post by Natsu »

manicdee wrote: post #13
at-fates-hands wrote: post #7

I stopped reading Ars Technica when they gave Trump an F on technology issues and Clinton an overall B+, including a B- on "privacy and security". I mean, how much more partisan can you get than that? The woman was under investigation for leaking classified emails and using an unprotected email server for fucks sake. When a media outlet does something like that, I just can't take anything else they report on seriousl…

What came of the investigation? Republican fanatics keep missing the part that comes next, or claiming that the lack of conviction is due to the system being rigged. And of course no mention of Bush/Cheney and the private email server saga.

If they wanted to push that issue, there's a nice long email from Colin Powell to Hillary Clinton detailing exactly how to dodge the Presidential Records Act.

https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/30324

Use the "view original PDF" link.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#27

Post by tanderson92 »

paulddraper wrote: post #25
tanderson92 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index f…

Investing in the S&P 500 delegates the "actual wealth creation" to others by providing them with the means. And they, on average, would have done a little better than Trump did.

No, it really does not. The S&P 500 inclusion criteria[1] states:

> Treatment of IPOs. Initial public offerings should be seasoned for six to 12 months before being considered for addition to an index.

So if the S&P 500 explicitly excludes equities to IPO into the index, then how is it that an investor in an S&P 500 index is delegating wealth creation? They're just trading the returns with other investors. And to be clear, this is totally great for the investor! But it shouldn't be confused with actual business.

[1]: https://us.spindices.com/documents/methodologies/methodology...

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#28

Post by fny »

r00fus wrote: post #6
beedogs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either that, or he'll just break his promise and let it go through.

Bingo. Promises, for Trump, are fulfilled upon announcement, and then forgotten. The examples are legion.

I think, despite political affiliation, it's our obligation to hold him to the promises we believe in and galvanize his fired-up base to do so as well.

I voted for Clinton and volunteered for the campaign, but I'll gladly push him to keep his word on this promise and the others that I believe will benefit our country.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#29

Post by icebraining »

tanderson92 wrote: post #21
jackweirdy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Donald Trump would have more money now if he put his inheritance in an index fund. http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

I continue to be mystified by this take. The S&P 500 index is usually the benchmark cited here. But the S&P 500 is tremendously diversified over sectors, factors, you name it. Trump managed to create actual wealth in our economic system at a rate slightly less than the S&P 500. If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders on the economic engine that Trump is part of (full disclosure: I use index f…

If anything the people who invest in index funds are freeloaders

No. How much wealth could those individuals create if they couldn't sell the companies on the market and invest that money, and had instead to accumulate dividends? The relationship is symbiotic.

Yes, Trump created wealth, but the point is that his peers would have created even more if he hadn't used that money himself. To make an analogy, I can swim a few laps, but you wouldn't want to have me replace Michael Phelps on your team.

Re: Trump, our next president, promised to block AT&T/Time Warner merger

#30

Post by croon »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #4

> But Trump's promise to block the merger won't necessarily be fulfilled. Cop-out in the subtitle followed by thirty paragraphs of navel gazing.

I'm fairly certain this is a phrase we'll be seeing a lot of.

> But Trump's promise to ...... won't necessarily be fulfilled.

Post reply on HN