The SpaceX IPO It's Worse Than You Think [video] (opens in new tab)

(youtube.com)

47 pointsZeljkoS1mo ago6 comments

6 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

Schiendelman1mo ago· 3 in thread

Often this guy only tells part of a story - in this case, the NASDAQ changes may be somewhat necessary to encourage companies to IPO, and to avoid missing important companies in indices. We're seeing companies stay private a lot longer than we used to. I'm saying "may be" because I don't know a lot about it, but that aspect of the conversation is missing from the video - why did NASDAQ make these changes?

iririririr1mo ago

this is a unfounded proposition in the same line as "if we tax them they will leave". it makes absolutely no sense to throw away one rule to make it more enticing for the people outside of the rule when keeping them out was the purpose of the rule. we migth as well make muder legal by that logic.

johng1mo ago

I think your example of "if we tax them they will leave" is off-base. Because that is absolutely, most certainly, the case.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-blue-state-exodus-enriches-r...

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/happening-...

iririririr1mo ago

are you making an effort to not understand?

If N billionaires don't pay tax, their tax is zero. the state makes zero. period.

Now the state tax them and two leave. The state now collected N-2, which is immensely more than zero.

How is it smart people are so gullible to fall for the opinion pieces you shared!?

1 more reply

iririririr1mo ago

most of the video is explaining the xAi scam (and ignoring starlink ozone pollution cost)

hear the main point on this time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6YzlY_8tM&t=562

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

6 comments

5 comments · 2 top-level

Schiendelman1mo ago· 3 in thread

Often this guy only tells part of a story - in this case, the NASDAQ changes may be somewhat necessary to encourage companies to IPO, and to avoid missing important companies in indices. We're seeing companies stay private a lot longer than we used to. I'm saying "may be" because I don't know a lot about it, but that aspect of the conversation is missing from the video - why did NASDAQ make these changes?

iririririr1mo ago

this is a unfounded proposition in the same line as "if we tax them they will leave". it makes absolutely no sense to throw away one rule to make it more enticing for the people outside of the rule when keeping them out was the purpose of the rule. we migth as well make muder legal by that logic.

johng1mo ago

I think your example of "if we tax them they will leave" is off-base. Because that is absolutely, most certainly, the case.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-blue-state-exodus-enriches-r...

https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/happening-...

iririririr1mo ago

are you making an effort to not understand?

If N billionaires don't pay tax, their tax is zero. the state makes zero. period.

Now the state tax them and two leave. The state now collected N-2, which is immensely more than zero.

How is it smart people are so gullible to fall for the opinion pieces you shared!?

1 more reply

iririririr1mo ago

most of the video is explaining the xAi scam (and ignoring starlink ozone pollution cost)

hear the main point on this time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6YzlY_8tM&t=562

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse