A Proof (1 Viewer)

[Jon]

A comapny that takes in 4 mill/yer and looses nearly 50 mill/year is not not a good investment.

It is all about trajectory. Most big tech firms start off haemorrhaging money. When Elon bought Twitter, wasn't there some kind of mad disparity between the profits and the purchase price?

 

[jpl458]

It doesn't negate the fact that 60 minutes manipulated the election process to favor Biden. Furthermore, your rant concerning short-selling is a distraction from the topic that the Democrats "fixed" the 2020 election.

Lots but only if you choose to look at it.

You better be planning your strategy for contesting the 2024 election if you can't sequester any of the ballots or machines. No videos of ballot box stuffers making the rounds and then disposing of their plastic gloves will be admitted because that isn't actual evidence. No affidavits claiming fraud. Those can't be accepted. No ballots received after election day can be rejected so the Republicans can use the same technique as the Dems. Just keep "finding" boxes of ballots until you win The fact that you will need to do a 180 to even question the vote will be simply too amusing for words. What will your excuse be? The Russians again?

Sorry Pat, but that is not proof. There were court cases, and recounts. Trump still lost. No proof, but a lot of theories, to quote the Rudy.

 

[Steve R.]

Again and again, I ask if you have proof of that. Real, actual, emperical, verifiable proof.

Your boy Garland, a Biden appointee, provided the proof. According to Garland voter identification is not necessary. That clearly implies that a federal election without voter identification is not secure.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Sorry Pat, but that is not proof. There were court cases, and recounts. Trump still lost. No proof, but a lot of theories, to quote the Rudy.

You can play as dumb as you want. Cover your eyes and your ears. Hide in a closet. Smoke dope, take stupid pills, whatever it takes to avoid the truth. Most of the court cases were dismissed for lack of standing so the court would not need to even look at the evidence. Look what happened to the Supremes when they overturned Roe v Wade and that was only about making killing babies more difficult. How many judges are brave enough to put their families through a trial let alone a verdict in favor of the evil orange man? Would you be?

 

[jpl458]

It is all about trajectory. Most big tech firms start off haemorrhaging money. When Elon bought Twitter, wasn't there some kind of mad disparity between the profits and the purchase price?

In big tech firms there was an idea that made sense enough that investors would put in cash for Preferred Stock early in the process. But those firms, that ended up a success were not given millions and millions of buck all at once. As they show a bit of success, they get more cash, up to a point where they go public, and the owners of Preferred stck clean up. I once worked for a company that rewarded me in stock that I could buy for $1 a share when it went public. It went public at $49 then rose to $129 when I started selling it off. Then it split 2 for 1. It's much like real estate development, there has to be proof of success along the way. A developer comes up with a project, like a high rise that has condos and commercial space. When the developer goes to the bank they only give him enough to get started. Next he has to sell some number of the undeveloped units before he can get more money. This cycle goes on several times. In the beginning the developer attracts buyers with attractive prices, that get less attractive with each ensuing round of financing. The develper takes out cash with every round of financing. DJT has nothing like what I just described. if you don't believe me then mortgage your house, and take out loans, and max your credit cards on DJT stock. And but a tent.

 

[Jon]

if you don't believe me then mortgage your house, and take out loans, and max your credit cards on DJT stock. And but a tent.

I think you are mixing up two different things. The current share price of a company factors in the predicted trajectory of how well the company will do in the future. That gives you the current share price. You are talking about me investing in the stock because I think the company trajectory will go up. But the current price already factors in the perceived trajectory. That is what the efficient stockmarket hypothesis is. For example, if inflation is expected to go up in two years time, the current price of stocks has already factored that in. If I buy the stock to make money, I have to believe it will go up faster than the majority of people currently believe.

Being given millions all at once does not make any difference because it is about the perceive trajectory of how well the company will do. There has been a couple of years to give investors an idea. The initial investment is just something you factor into the company value.

And a nice increase on your $1 per share investment. A very juicy deal indeed.

 

[jpl458]

I think you are mixing up two different things. The current share price of a company factors in the predicted trajectory of how well the company will do in the future. That gives you the current share price. You are talking about me investing in the stock because I think the company trajectory will go up. But the current price already factors in the perceived trajectory. That is what the efficient stockmarket hypothesis is. For example, if inflation is expected to go up in two years time, the current price of stocks has already factored that in. If I buy the stock to make money, I have to believe it will go up faster than the majority of people currently believe.

Being given millions all at once does not make any difference because it is about the perceive trajectory of how well the company will do. There has been a couple of years to give investors an idea. The initial investment is just something you factor into the company value.

And a nice increase on your $1 per share investment. A very juicy deal indeed.

Venture capilalists don't give the money all at once, never. I worked closely with a compnay called Oak Ventures. They will dole it out as the company can prove the it is on a path to success because its product is being accepted, and onloy for preferred stock.

 

[AccessBlaster]

I'm not selling any stocks until Nancy does.

 

[Jon]

Venture capilalists don't give the money all at once, never. I worked closely with a compnay called Oak Ventures. They will dole it out as the company can prove the it is on a path to success because its product is being accepted, and onloy for preferred stock.

So you are saying they never give the money all at once and they did give Trump the money all at once? I'm confused!

 

[Jon]

I'm not selling any stocks until Nancy does.

I'm with Nancy. That woman is a genius trader. She beats the index every time!

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[moke123]

View attachment 113536

it's called MAGA.

 

[Jon]

it's called MAGA.

That actually made me laugh!

 

[jpl458]

I'm not selling any stocks until Nancy does.

Very shrewd. Although, I think she has probably dumped all her Boeing stock already.

 

[RogerCooper]

Can we split this factor out into its two REAL components? I don't give a royal rat's patootie about people coming here and working jobs that nobody else wants. Immigrants (legal ones) helped rebuild my house after Hurricane Katrina in 2005. They were great workers and did a a faulous job. I'm cool with them being here. An immigrant's company just did some painting and carpentry for my step-daughter's house. We were impressed with their level of detail. Their people are also here legally.

What I care about are the ones who come here illegally because by doing so, their very first action in this country is to break its laws. There, I have a major problem. Do I want Congress to fix immigration laws? Yes. Do I want the new immigration laws to be an open door policy? No, because of the criminals who find their way here and end up in gangs or sucking on the public teat which is fed by my taxes, and which makes the Liberal Progressives start to talk about more taxes that will eventually reach down to my poor retired-person level. Thanks but absolutely NO THANKS.

Note that most of those crossing the border are not coming illegally. They are turning themselves over to the border patrol and applying for refugee status in accordance with US law. The largest group is coming from Venezuela, where a "Socialist" government destroyed the economy and persecuted political opponents. The distinction between refugees and economic migrants can be blurry.

As a retiree, you should be particularly in favor of increasing immigration. In about 2030, the Social Security trust fund runs out, leaving benefits financed at only 78%. The most pain-free way of increasing revenue is to bring larger numbers of young immigrants. The alternative is increasing taxes (as Biden has proposed) or reducing benefits (as Trump has proposed).

Under current US law, there are only about 1.5 million slots available for legal immigrants, which is clearly insufficient for the needs of our economy. Canada has about twice the US immigration rate, with lower crime and slightly higher standard of living. Increasing legal immigration would reduce the chaos on the border and improve out standard of living.

 

[moke123]

Note that most of those crossing the border are not coming illegally.

But that's not scary enough for the maga crowd.

The largest group is coming from Venezuela,

They are part of the Biden CHNV Parole program which cut the illegal crossings from those countries by something like 93 percent. And unlike Pat's representation of the program, the immigrant has a us sponsor, pays their own way, and is vetted prior to arrival and can get work visas.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Parole

Parole is the operative word here.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Note that most of those crossing the border are not coming illegally. They are turning themselves over to the border patrol and applying for refugee status in accordance with US law. The largest group is coming from Venezuela, where a "Socialist" government destroyed the economy and persecuted political opponents. The distinction between refugees and economic migrants can be blurry.

As a retiree, you should be particularly in favor of increasing immigration. In about 2030, the Social Security trust fund runs out, leaving benefits financed at only 78%. The most pain-free way of increasing revenue is to bring larger numbers of young immigrants. The alternative is increasing taxes (as Biden has proposed) or reducing benefits (as Trump has proposed).

Under current US law, there are only about 1.5 million slots available for legal immigrants, which is clearly insufficient for the needs of our economy. Canada has about twice the US immigration rate, with lower crime and slightly higher standard of living. Increasing legal immigration would reduce the chaos on the border and improve out standard of living.

It reminds me of a "mostly peaceful protest"

 

[jpl458]

Note that most of those crossing the border are not coming illegally. They are turning themselves over to the border patrol and applying for refugee status in accordance with US law. The largest group is coming from Venezuela, where a "Socialist" government destroyed the economy and persecuted political opponents. The distinction between refugees and economic migrants can be blurry.

As a retiree, you should be particularly in favor of increasing immigration. In about 2030, the Social Security trust fund runs out, leaving benefits financed at only 78%. The most pain-free way of increasing revenue is to bring larger numbers of young immigrants. The alternative is increasing taxes (as Biden has proposed) or reducing benefits (as Trump has proposed).

Under current US law, there are only about 1.5 million slots available for legal immigrants, which is clearly insufficient for the needs of our economy. Canada has about twice the US immigration rate, with lower crime and slightly higher standard of living. Increasing legal immigration would reduce the chaos on the border and improve out standard of living.

Well said, Roger. I agree with Doc except that he makes sound like the vast majority of immatgrants are criminals. In any large gorup of people some will be less than lawabiding. But the vast majority immagrants just want a better life. There has been a lot of fear mongering lately that is out of step with reality.

 

[AccessBlaster]

Well said, Roger. I agree with Doc except that he makes sound like the vast majority of immatgrants are criminals. In any large gorup of people some will be less than lawabiding. But the vast majority immagrants just want a better life. There has been a lot of fear mongering lately that is out of step with reality.

The problem is the got aways. Which number in the millions.