Grotesque stock valuations for companies.

[theprestige]

I KNOW! This is what I have been saying! It all comes from perceived value. This is how the system works.

I'd argue that EITHER:

• Stocks have real value, in the sense that they have a price, and people buy and sell them at the posted price, even though the value of the company itself is largely perceptual;

OR

• ALL commerce is based on perceived value.

It's fine with me either way, so I'm curious what you think the problem is.

What happens when that value is shown to be a fraud? Stock prices collapse and anyone who bought the stock suffers losses.

We already regulate fraud across the entire spectrum of commercial transactions. We already regulate things like stock price manipulation (unless it's US Senators that are doing it).

You're basically reasoning from your desired conclusion: Being (too) rich is bad, therefore the source of (excess) riches must be bad, and we must single it out for special sanctions. That doesn't scale, and is a bad approach anyway. You can't just roll through macro-economics, trying to shut down every single kind of economic activity that ends up making someone rich.

---

You've said that being (too) rich is bad, because we need that money to increase funding for broken systems. I've explained why that argument doesn't convince me. I have nothing new to add on that score, and it doesn't seem like you have anything to add. So I propose that instead of continuing to spam our conclusions at each other, we give it a rest, and let the audience decide for themselves which position they prefer (if either).

---

On the off chance you want to keep going, I'll try to anticipate your next argument: The problem of regulatory capture in the stock market won't be solved by throwing more money at the regulators.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Defense and law enforcement are not the majority of government spending. The fact that you won't even mention cutting entitlements is again quite telling. And it's not like there's no room for cuts either. Just eliminating the obvious fraud and waste would save tens of billions.

so why did Republicans block any effort to go after Covid Loan Fraud?
why does Trump get to hide his tax returns?

An unlike tanks for cops, we need "Entitlements", i.e. money promised. Or you can say goodbye to the economy.
Entitlements is a made-up term like Welfare Queen to sell a policy. It is not founded in fact: the system is based on sending money back to people who need it and/or have worked for it.

I have no objection. Seems like we ought to try that before we try to radically increase tax rates or impose a wealth tax.

Republicans as a policy do. Trump's no.1 enemy is the IRS.

Don't lecture me about stealing food for children. That's primarily a Democrat problem.

wrong. Republicans are kicking millions of kids off SNAP. And they have a permanent crusade against funding school lunches.

 

[acbytesla]

I said nothing about eliminating entitlements. I said cut back on entitlement spending.

You said "cutting entitlements." My inference was fair.

Are you under the impression that only unemployed people get entitlements?

Not at all. The underpaid also receive entitlements.

I just gave you a specific example.

No, you didn't.

I just did.

No you didn't.

I've never ever seen Democrats actually cut down on fraud and abuse.

It happened all the time. Both the Obama administration and the Biden Administration ran a long running detailed tally that listed of fraud and waste they eliminated. Not that you paid any attention to those.

Instead, they try to make it illegal to uncover fraud and abuse.

Shirley was trying to carry on the xenophobia that immigrants are bad and nobody should help them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Shirley was trying to carry on the xenophobia that immigrants are bad and nobody should help them.

Shirley was uncovering obvious and extensive fraud. He's not the villain. And trying to make him the villain demonstrates why I don't need to take you seriously. You aren't serious.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Oh. That's... disappointing. The primary reason it's disappointing is that he rather obviously DID NOT write that. He spoke it. And he did not speak an apostrophe.

I apologize to Thomas Sowell, and revise my statement to say the main thing to be learned from the X post posted by @sowelleconomics is that @sowelleconomics doesn't know when to use and when not to use an apostrophe. (Following that link establishes that @sowelleconomics gives South Africa as his location and joined X in September 2023.)

ETA: Another thing we learned is that @Trausti quoted @sowelleconomics without acknowledging that the ignoramus he was citing is not Thomas Sowell.

I'll give you a hint about how I know for certain that it's wrong. That clip is from a much longer interview, which you can find here:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyufeHJlodE
The clipped part is from around the 44:30 mark, if you want to confirm. But you don't have to watch any of the video to see why it's actually impossible for Sowell to be referring to your restructuring proposal. See if you can figure it out.

So long as we're pretending to care about what is true, what is true is that several of Sowell's fellow travelers have been telling us he was referring to the restructuring proposal I cited.

 

[Ziggurat]

I apologize to Thomas Sowell

OK.

ETA: Another thing we learned is that @Trausti quoted @sowelleconomics without acknowledging that the ignoramus he was citing is not Thomas Sowell.

The video clip is absolutely Thomas Sowell. You do know that it's a video clip, don't you? Other than the apostrophe in the text, are there any other mistakes in the transcription of what Sowell said?https://internationalskeptics.com/f...valuations-for-companies.379969/post-14845684

So long as we're pretending to care about what is true, what is true is that several of Sowell's fellow travelers have been telling us he was referring to the restructuring proposal I cited.

Tabarrok referrs to the proposal in that link, but he does not refer to Sowell, so I don't know on what basis you conclude that Tabarrok thinks Sowell was referring to the proposal.

And again, I will note that I know for absolute certainty that Sowell was not referring to the proposal you linked. Do you still think he was? Because I can prove that he was not. You could prove it too, if you paid a bit of attention. All the necessary info has already been linked.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

OK.

The video clip is absolutely Thomas Sowell. You do know that it's a video clip, don't you? Other than the apostrophe in the text, are there any other mistakes in the transcription of what Sowell said?https://internationalskeptics.com/f...valuations-for-companies.379969/post-14845684

Tabarrok referrs to the proposal in that link, but he does not refer to Sowell, so I don't know on what basis you conclude that Tabarrok thinks Sowell was referring to the proposal.

And again, I will note that I know for absolute certainty that Sowell was not referring to the proposal you linked. Do you still think he was? Because I can prove that he was not. You could prove it too, if you paid a bit of attention. All the necessary info has already been linked.

I concede that the various errors cited by the two of us (you and I) were actually committed by @Trausti when he quoted an ignoramus who pretended to quote Thomas Sowell.

If you believe @Trausti's misquotation of Thomas Sowell was accurate, then you are not disputing my criticism of what @Trausti wanted us to think Sowell actually said.

I apologize for caring so little about what Thomas Sowell thinks that I assumed @Trausti was actually quoting Sowell.

 

[The Atheist]

You know Elon Musk will not really have a trillion dollars, don't you?

Srsly?

I struggle to believe anyone would ask a question that stupid.

 

[dirtywick]

Shirley was trying to carry on the xenophobia that immigrants are bad and nobody should help them.

here's a nick shirley interview, starting at 3m you can listen to him poorly explain his investigation at the beginning, and the video goes over the boosting it received on social media and specifically 9m for nick's explanation of his fraud "investigation" and where he got his information (fyi it was from the gop through a backchannel named david) and his complaints on how he was treated by the mainstream media.

a little extra content if you want is 27m for more of his views on minnesota fraud, 33m specifically for his idiotic views on immigrants and some bonus charlie kirk whining. 52m he even talks a familiar tune on his views on taxing the rich.

so that's a little nick shirley info from nick shirley if anyone is interested

 

[Ziggurat]

I concede that the various errors cited by the two of us (you and I) were actually committed by @Trausti when he quoted an ignoramus who pretended to quote Thomas Sowell.

Trausti's post had video of Sowell. The video does not depend upon the transcription, you can listen to Sowell's actual words directly.

I apologize for caring so little about what Thomas Sowell thinks that I assumed @Trausti was actually quoting Sowell.

You have not yet admitted your own error in claiming that Sowell was referring to your linked restructuring proposal. That isn't something you need apologize for, but it is an error.

 

[theprestige]

why does Trump get to hide his tax returns?

Everybody gets to "hide" their tax returns. This is the default privilege granted by law to all of us. Including Donald Trump.

 

[dirtywick]

OpenAI confidentially files IPO paperwork

OpenAI filed paperwork for its initial public offering.

finance.yahoo.com

looks like openai ipo is next at $850m valuation

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Trausti's post had video of Sowell. The video does not depend upon the transcription, you can listen to Sowell's actual words directly.

In that 63-second video, Sowell offers no evidence whatsoever in support of his insinuation that raising tax rates in Detroit caused a decline in the city's revenues. To assume they did is to fall for the correlation equals causation fallacy.

I offered a possible explanation for Sowell's opinion:

Sowell and those who quote him on this appear to be referring to a restructuring proposal that acknowledges Detroit's high tax rates,

You have not yet admitted your own error in claiming that Sowell was referring to your linked restructuring proposal. That isn't something you need apologize for, but it is an error.

That restructuring document may not be the source of Sowell's opinion, but no other source for his opinion has been proposed. And that particular document, which comes as close as any to supporting Sowell's opinion, rather explicitly contradicts Sowell's insinuation.

Suggesting that the restructuring document appears to be a source for Sowell's opinion may have been an error, but citing that 2013 document as support for the idea that reducing taxes would increase revenue is an error that others have made, and is very much in line with Sowell's history of saying "Higher tax rates do not mean higher tax revenues."

 

[theprestige]

Considering all the AI glazing lately, that number seems shockingly low. Is the backlash gaining momentum already?

 

[dirtywick]

well, as absurd as the spacex ipo is, at least it includes a business that produces an actual profit, even if it's jammed full of bad investments, debts, and heavily favors insiders. openai is a money furnace

 

[Ziggurat]

I offered a possible explanation for Sowell's opinion:

That explanation is literally impossible.

 

[Trausti]

In that 63-second video, Sowell offers no evidence whatsoever in support of his insinuation that raising tax rates in Detroit caused a decline in the city's revenues. To assume they did is to fall for the correlation equals causation fallacy.

I actually posted that video for the observation that politicians, like Obama, used the "tax the rich" mantra for votes, regardless of the consequences. While I generally agree that tax increases can lead to reduced tax collection (see California), there are likely other factors, like crime, for Detroit's decline.

 

[acbytesla]

Everybody gets to "hide" their tax returns. This is the default privilege granted by law to all of us. Including Donald Trump.

All President's since 1975 with the exception of Trump have made their tax returns public. Because Presidents exerts so much influence on every decision, transparency should be required.

 

[acbytesla]

You keep referring to Shirley saying he uncovered fraud. Did he discover immigrants without a need? Or just that they were immigrants?

 

[Ziggurat]

You keep referring to Shirley saying he uncovered fraud. Did he discover immigrants without a need? Or just that they were immigrants?

Are you disputing that he uncovered fraud? Or does it just not count because raysism?