Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Another reminder that glitter doesn’t always lead to gold. FTX and its oh-so-scruffy whiz kid have tanked, and they’re bringing a lot of risk-takers down with them. But some of us can’t help but wonder if they were even tricked by actual glitter. If they had been paying attention to Rich Goldberg—host of our Cryptonite podcast—they might’ve seen it coming. If they tune in today, they might at least learn a lesson or two.
And while we’re on the subject of misguided expectations, we’ve invited back Charles McElwee of RealClearPennsylvania. He’s here to explain the demographic entanglements that make PA a hard state to call and the mistakes the GOP made that’ve made us blue these days.
And Elon Musk sure has a way of keeping us talking about his new tweet factory. Happy Thanksgiving! See you all in two weeks.
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Yes and the equity is going to move regardless.
Yeah well if the equity goes up what are you going to do about it? You can’t suppress equity valuations in this sense unless the government gets involved.
This reminds me of your view that I shouldn’t listen to podcasts in my car. Guess what? I’m going to do it whenever I damn well please.
After the initial public offering, there is no change in funding. So this is 100% wrong.
So, you’re saying that selling them the rope to hang you with is stupid, and so is NOT selling them the rope to hang you with?
Hmm.
Sure I can’t force people to not invest in things that hurt them, but I can notice that they’re stupid – or worse – for doing so. And try to help other people see it too.
“See that guy who thinks it’s smart to profit from support of the Biden agenda and stuff while futilely voting for Trump? Don’t be like that guy.”
Higher stock prices make for investment enthusiasm and higher earnings, etc.
That isn’t what is happening and I just explained that to you.
You think like a collectivist. Nobody is inspired to do what you recommend. It’s terrible advice.
Berkshire Hathaway opposes fuel pipelines because Warren Buffet owns a railroad company/line.
Transporting oil by rail instead of by pipeline is less efficient, less safe – more leaks, etc – and worse for the country, and the country’s energy security and independence, and hence worse for US.
So, investing in and profiting from Berkshire Hathaway/Warren Buffet might be really good for Warren Buffet, but is NOT so good for the country, or for US.
Which means that investing in and profiting from Berkshire Hathaway/Warren Buffet is indeed bad/counter-productive for MOST people who do it, other than the bigwigs.
Even if you make a “profit” from it, and even if that “profit” exceeds YOUR OWN INDIVIDUAL increased cost of fuel. And for sure that “profit” isn’t all profit. You need to subtract the individual costs of that profit. If you gain $5,000 from the investment but spend $2,000 more for fuel, your actual profit is at best only $3,000 and probably less than that. It’s quite likely negative. But largely “invisible” if you don’t make the connection.
Sure, some people can profit from the country going down the crapper. But is that a good reason to be part of it?
Then again, you might think it’s fine if China takes over as long as you get a taste. CAPITALISM!!!
I already explained to you that this makes no difference after the IPO. There is no change in funding.
The math doesn’t work like that. You are better off being in the equity.
False. You are just making this up.
Now you are contradicting what you already said.
The difference is made in public policy, not the equity investments after the IPO.
Oh come on. They get income from many sources.
Same difference really. Make your profit along the way, or when you sell.
More true for smaller investors than bigger ones. If you’re a bigger investor, you’re making profit yourself, and just making lots of other people who AREN’T investors pay a lot more for fuel.
Congratulations!
If you don’t think some people – like Warren Buffet – can profit from the country going down the crapper, why do you think they support people like Obama and Hillary and Biden?
It takes a special kind of density to miss things like that.
You act like those “differences” actually matter in the end. But they don’t. Especially not to the billions of people in the world who AREN’T invested in Berkshire Hathaway.
The individual that makes this decision to buy this security does not affect this.
The equity is going to go up at a greater percentage. There is no scenario where this isn’t going to happen.
After the IPO, this is not what happens. That is what we are talking about here.
Furthermore, feel free to shame conservatives about how they make equity investments and watch what happens. lol You talk like a fascist that hates freedom.
100% wrong. The solution is in public policy, not babbling about what conservatives choose to have equity stakes in.
Doesn’t Berkshire Hathaway support wind energy systems because he owns a railroad that ships wind turbine components by rail? Sounds like by not supporting BH you’re against US energy security and independence etc. and support the Climate Crisis.
Might be a valid argument if wind energy had anything to do with actual energy security and independence. Especially considering the windmills and solar panels are made in China.
In simple image form, for convenient sharing:
Glad to see that Rob hasn’t lost his comedic touch. Laughed out loud when Rob said that Biden won Pennsylvania fair and square in 2020. Nothing about Pennsylvania was fair and square in 2020. They didn’t follow their own constitution and laws to make changes to the election process. Haven’t followed the state this year to know if anything was improved, but I doubt it.
“Hi. Good night everybody.”
I also noted that passing declaration of faith on Rob’s part, and found it amusing.
I’m agnostic on the impact of election fraud in 2020, other than to note that duplicity of the bias-and-censorship variety was widespread and, I suspect, determinative of the outcome. Whether or not actual cheating on the ground was sufficient to throw the election one way or the other remains inconclusive. Given the peculiarities of 2020 voting, I think a firm claim either that it was or was not determined by literal cheating is unfounded. But they do get slipped in, and from both sides.
So, the many thousands of ballots illegally (as determined by courts including state Supreme Courts) cast and counted, in multiple swing states, means nothing to you?
KE, that is an unsound leap of logic. I didn’t say illegal ballots mean nothing to me. I said I don’t know whether or not illegal ballots were numerically sufficient to change the outcome of the election.
Nor do you. Because of the lack of controls on our electoral processes, it’s usually impossible to determine just how many illegal ballots were cast and who they favored. We’re free to speculate, of course, but to pretend we know that it was stolen is no more sound than to pretend to know that it was, as Rob put it, “fair and square.”
I think in some states it’s been definitely established. Meanwhile, the usual rule is that when “questionable” votes exceed the margin of “victory,” the only real solution is to re-do the election.
I’m skeptical that that is true, but an open-minded sort willing to be convinced by clear evidence, should anyone care to present it.
St A probably has the most detailed coverage of all that.
1000%
Is your recommendation that elections be done over?
In states that didn’t provide a verifiable result, it should be either done over, or their portion ignored. Otherwise they have no incentive to clean up their act.
Well, our side has the guns. lol
We have procedures for dealing with fraud. We need to make those procedures better. I don’t think overturning results based on inconclusive evidence is a good way to uphold our Constitutional traditions and values. We can create incentives that don’t involve overturning concluded elections. For example, we can arrest, fine, and imprison everyone convicted of election fraud. And we can change the rules to make election fraud harder to commit and easier to prosecute. We should do those things.
I think constitutionally a lot of that stuff can be thrown out and they can send whoever they want. The problem is, the fault is the lack of GOP oversight. The other problem is it’s politically impossible unless you like violence. lol
I don’t see how the fact that I like violence has anything to do with it, Ruf. ;)