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

America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 314 posts

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#221

Post by mschuster91 »

irrational wrote: post #194
Shivetya wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many want the trappings of success out of the gate and keep ignoring many of their bosses and superiors at work have a lot of time invested and earnings already. they also confuse what they seen TV for real life. tell, who doesn't have people in the lower rungs of their IT group with more expensive cars or outfits than you would feel comfortable with at twice their salary? then top off the people who eat out every da…

I tell this to my college age kids. One of them is off touring Europe right now. I asked her how she is paying for it (and pointed out that I've never been to Europe because I can't afford it). She says she is going into debt to do it, but it is okay because experiences are more important than money. She is studying anthropology and non-profit management. I've pointed out that there aren't very well paying jobs with…

Your daughter is more financially prudent than you think: she realized that, no matter how much of her young life she lived on ramen, she will never have much in her name as most of her income will be wasted away on rents, transportation and food. So she decides to f..k it and at least have fun. Better die poor and having lived a fruitful life than die poor and having lived on ramen the entire time.

With many of my generation spending upwards of 50%, sometimes even 70% or more, only on housing, how on earth are we expected to build savings? With six figure student loans that aren't dischargeable in bankruptcy and medical bills at similar conditions? We will be the explosion that finally shows how fucked up pension systems and wealth allocation have become, and this bubble will explode in about 40-50 years, if not earlier.

Add climate change to the mix which our politicians won't do anything for the coming 10, 20 years and which will inevitably and unpreventably explode at the same time... yes, definitely, I rather have a life now, I won't be able to make it to retirement anyway, no matter what I do.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#222

Post by flyinthewheel »

malandrew wrote: post #199
bluGill wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you die deep in dept you managed to cheat at life: your cost of living was higher than input. If you die rich you got cheated: you put more effort into life than you got out of it.

If you died rich and have a family to leave the wealth to and the state isn't set up to steal your wealth by taxing you a second time, you've won at life. A big part of life is spreading your genes and making sure that your offspring are well set up to continue spreading your genes. This either requires heirs and wealth at death or at least making sure you transfer wealth to your heirs before you die.

I’d be interested in hearing you expand on that. Why do you personally identify with your genes, which will be diluted to nothingness in just a few generations? To my mind it seem a bizarre and borderline pathological worldview- something rooted less in actual biology than in an invented teleology.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#223

Post by mikeash »

leesalminen wrote: post #134
everdrive wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because selfish behavior is still wrong even if it's incentivized by a system.

I don’t believe that looking out for one’s own interests (“selfish”) is wrong. My dad taught me a valuable lesson as a child- the world owes you nothing and as long as you understand that you'll be fine. I take that to mean that nobody else will look out for you so you have to do what's best for you. In my situation, my employees profited nicely from a PE acquisition. They all got a sizeable transaction bonus. Not on…

Your dad was half right: the world owes you nothing. Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be fine if you understand that.

The universe is a cold, uncaring place. Part of the reason we create societies is to improve on that.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#224

Post by luckydata »

hcs wrote: post #189
luckydata wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only fix required would be changing slightly the definition of fiduciary duty expanding the concept to ALL stakeholders including customers and the people living where those businesses are based and it would become illegal overnight to do that. It will never happen.

The zeroth law?

lol yeah

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#225

Post by laughinghan »

mwfunk wrote: post #203
nickelcitymario wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thought experiment: John lives in extreme poverty. He's debt free, but is unable to adequately feed himself or his family. Several of his children have died from malnutrition. Marc lives in a nice suburban home, has 3 square meals a day, so does everyone in his family. However, his debts (including his mortgage, car payments, student loans) exceed his savings. If our intuition is wrong, then John is winning. He…

They’re both screwed. I’d rather have crippling debt than children dying from malnutrition, but obviously both Marc and John are completely screwed in different ways. They’re both losers in this scenario, there are no winners.

In what way is Marc screwed? In the scenario given, even though Marc's debts exceed his current savings, there's every reason to believe his future income will outpace his debts and that he'll be able to maintain his standard of living until he dies.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#226

Post by rdiddly »

irrational wrote: post #194
Shivetya wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many want the trappings of success out of the gate and keep ignoring many of their bosses and superiors at work have a lot of time invested and earnings already. they also confuse what they seen TV for real life. tell, who doesn't have people in the lower rungs of their IT group with more expensive cars or outfits than you would feel comfortable with at twice their salary? then top off the people who eat out every da…

I tell this to my college age kids. One of them is off touring Europe right now. I asked her how she is paying for it (and pointed out that I've never been to Europe because I can't afford it). She says she is going into debt to do it, but it is okay because experiences are more important than money. She is studying anthropology and non-profit management. I've pointed out that there aren't very well paying jobs with…

Oh man. If money isn't important then why borrow it? There's a disconnect there -- one that, I might add, I suffered from to some degree at that age. What everybody tried to tell me, and what I would say to your kid if there were a chance in hell she would ever read this, is, "Money isn't everything" only when you have enough. Although her net worth is now negative so in a way she's poorer than someone who has nothing. And she'll soon get to experience what paying that off feels like. Money might not feel important, but it's important to the people who are gonna be demanding payment.

But that's not really even it. Spending tons of money (especially money you don't have, which always costs more) is not what you do if you care more about experience than money. Someone who values experience over money spends time learning different ways of cooking beans & vegetables - delicious, nutritious. She gets a bike, learns to maintain it, and rides it everywhere, including to the farmer's market. After some advanced practice maybe she even learns to make her own clothes. These are all fulfilling and empowering experiences that deprioritize the spending of money. It even feels a little bit rebellious, because you don't have to earn tons of money, and can be somewhat less dependent on a consumerist lifestyle and all the hidden burdens that go with that. Like credit card debt servitude for instance.

That's what "money is less important" looks like. Whereas if the "experiences" you like are flying to Europe and shit, you like money. You're a Davos-ass mothafucka, with a Sasquatch carbon footprint, to boot. Life isn't Instagram. Glory lies in all directions and experience comes no matter what. Everything is an experience and most of the good ones are free. Don't fall for advice from your ignorant-ass peers, or from influencer/manipulators, or from lazy shallow journalists who want to characterize your whole generation in one wildly-inaccurate sentence!

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#227

Post by chipotle_coyote »

mwfunk wrote: post #203
nickelcitymario wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, thought experiment: John lives in extreme poverty. He's debt free, but is unable to adequately feed himself or his family. Several of his children have died from malnutrition. Marc lives in a nice suburban home, has 3 square meals a day, so does everyone in his family. However, his debts (including his mortgage, car payments, student loans) exceed his savings. If our intuition is wrong, then John is winning. He…

They’re both screwed. I’d rather have crippling debt than children dying from malnutrition, but obviously both Marc and John are completely screwed in different ways. They’re both losers in this scenario, there are no winners.

Both you and the poster you're replying to are comparing debt to savings rather than debt to income. Taking the numbers from a downstream reply, the guy with the $120K mortgage on the $150K house is ahead if he can comfortably afford the monthly payment on his mortgage with the $80K annual salary.

The entire point of taking out a loan is that you don't have the assets available to outright buy the thing you're taking out the loan for. Obviously, people can take on too much debt, be trapped by usurious interest rates, and so on; you need to be realistic about how much debt you can afford, and a lot of people aren't (often through no fault of their own). But "my total debt at this moment in time exceeds my savings" is not in and of itself a harbinger of financial doom.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#228

Post by msie »

irrational wrote: post #194
Shivetya wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

many want the trappings of success out of the gate and keep ignoring many of their bosses and superiors at work have a lot of time invested and earnings already. they also confuse what they seen TV for real life. tell, who doesn't have people in the lower rungs of their IT group with more expensive cars or outfits than you would feel comfortable with at twice their salary? then top off the people who eat out every da…

I tell this to my college age kids. One of them is off touring Europe right now. I asked her how she is paying for it (and pointed out that I've never been to Europe because I can't afford it). She says she is going into debt to do it, but it is okay because experiences are more important than money. She is studying anthropology and non-profit management. I've pointed out that there aren't very well paying jobs with…

You want to have the time of your life when you're young and healthy to enjoy it! All the money in the world can't turn back the clock. Of course there is an in-between way: delay that trip for a year and save money for it. But that's HARD.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#229

Post by roenxi »

jeffdavis wrote: post #213
mwfunk wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re both screwed. I’d rather have crippling debt than children dying from malnutrition, but obviously both Marc and John are completely screwed in different ways. They’re both losers in this scenario, there are no winners.

It might be more a matter of accounting. If you imagine that we are all born in a kind of "debt" where we need a home to live in, then a mortgage is just putting that debt on paper.

If you want to imagine we are all born with a 'debt' then you should also assume we are born with an 'asset'. They should be workign to put that on paper faster than the debt.

As a personal choice, I don't accept any excuse for taking on debt to fund a lifestyle. It is just not a good idea.

I've talked to people who come up with these crazy justifications in their 20s why spending money now is more important than spending money later; I don't know why it is so hard to accept that these decisions have a 20 year time horizons and that they are going to live to be 75. The averages are pretty clear, if you prioritise financial security above incidental expenses you can have both.

Expensive experiences are not worth more than financial security, they don't meaningfully contribute to people's lives or happiness. You can be just as happy playing sports with locals to meet new people as traveling to exotic locations to gawp at nice architecture and meet new people. In 10 years you won't notice if you cooked your own food or had someone else do it for you. An expensive car will not bring a normal person good luck. You can live in a couple of different houses over a lifetime and save much money with little downside.

The pleasure of a purchase is not an urgent need.

Re: America’s Oldest Gun Maker Went Bankrupt: A Financial Engineering Mystery

#230

Post by paulddraper »

dogismycopilot wrote: post #196
duxup wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understand. You see popular revolvers selling well... nobody is buying those based on the law.

Revolvers are absolutely more popular in areas where ammunition capacity is restricted. 7 round .357 is a great option in areas where there is a 10 round max for magazines. Places out east (NY, NJ) have extremely low limits for capacity, both in effect and proposed. When ammunition capacity is reduced, there is an incentive to go for a (typically) more reliable revolver. Many people would rather have say a 7-shot 357…

> When ammunition capacity is reduced, there is an incentive to go for a (typically) more reliable revolver.

In case anyone isn't reading between the lines:

The chief advantage of a more complicated, less reliable, more expensive semi-auto handgun is its larger capacity in a smaller profile. A semi-auto packs rounds tightly together rather than having an effective chamber around each one.

But if you don't actually get more rounds, might as well opt for a revolver like the parent.

Post reply on HN