lend000

57 ms·

601.
by lend000 6y ago
Sure, but deriding one without suggesting there is a better alternative is unproductive. And capitalism just implies that people are allowed to own property and engage in business freely. Obviously there are still laws under capitalism; for
602.
by lend000 6y ago
I suspect if you proposed a superior alternative instead of just decrying capitalism (which to me seems no different than saying 'cancer sucks!' and then leaving it at that), you might get more traction.
603.
by lend000 6y ago
I think your point that most pro "capitalism" folks will take issue with is that while there has never been a system in which all resources are perfectly allocated, it is believed that the information in prices set by a free marke
604.
by lend000 6y ago
DELETED=TRUE
605.
by lend000 6y ago
On the other hand, soon space will be so accessible that any serious astronomer will be able to deploy a cubesat to assist in imaging and observation. But I agree that this is an interesting dilemma. Perhaps the low earth orbit satellites s
606.
by lend000 6y ago
Here's a better explanation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_multiplier
607.
by lend000 6y ago
Can an innate immune system do anything about a virus that has already entered the organism? Or perhaps they just have such a strong outer layer and are so dispersed that viruses rarely evolve to target them, and quickly die out if they do.
608.
by lend000 6y ago
The formula to derive it is an infinite series that already takes that into account, so no, it's just $2 trillion total. This is not considered a controversial economic formula, but maybe you are on to something that could win you a No
609.
by lend000 6y ago
If I am understanding correctly, a virus that targeted any receptors within the Anglerfish would be fatal 100% of the time?
610.
by lend000 6y ago
If money is in a bank it is being redistributed throughout the economy at 1 / the fractional reserve ratio. So $200 billion in their bank account could end up creating $2 trillion in additional money supply in the economy, originating
611.
by lend000 6y ago
As outsiders it's very difficult to tell which aspects of the overall product are due to design differences and which are due to different manufacturing technologies. It's possible both design and manufacturing are better (for AMD
612.
by lend000 6y ago
A single socket AMD threadripper 3995WX (the "ECC" version just released) is likely going to destroy a dual socket Xeon 8275+ (the ones used for the Amazon C5 metal instance) in most benchmarks like the 3990X did, while running at
613.
by lend000 6y ago
Perhaps you should read the threads and try to "understand the mechanics" rather than judging the first line. The whole point of the "while it looks immoral" thread is that corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are broken
614.
by lend000 6y ago
Hertz insiders control less than 1% of voting shares. You will see similar numbers amongst most of the other older companies doling out executive bonuses. They did not have any power to grant themselves the bonuses. Keep in mind their overa
615.
by lend000 6y ago
This exact point is addressed: see thread.
616.
by lend000 6y ago
There is a long thread here now that addresses all your questions, rebuttals, and subsequent rebuttals. But fundamentally, you need to realize that if something is happening in a statistically significant way (like it is here with dozens of
617.
by lend000 6y ago
> It's possible to have an immoral result without any individual doing an egregiously immoral thing. I disagree. Better terms might be structural failure or misallocation of resources. Is death by aging immoral? No, it's just t
618.
by lend000 6y ago
You'll need a source for your aggressive claims -- these suggest that chapter 11 recidivism isn't that rare ("less than a handful" is patently false) [0][1]. And I wouldn't go so far as to abolish it, but to give de
619.
by lend000 6y ago
I think you overestimate how many executives think bankruptcy "could happen to them." It's almost as if you are mythologizing them as some omniscient, conniving villains. In any case, this is a very strange justification for
620.
by lend000 6y ago
[0] https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HTZ/holders?p=HTZ
621.
by lend000 6y ago
> So yes, it is immoral. Who did the immoral thing here? The executives don't set their own pay, and didn't necessarily ask for a bonus. What, you would decline the bonus and step down to restore your honor in their position?
622.
by lend000 6y ago
Companies generally don't file bankruptcy when they are "functioning but indebted." They file when they can't even afford to make their next (or past-due) debt payment, and no creditors will dare to lend any more to them
623.
by lend000 6y ago
Which players are going to aggressively lobby for this? Only ones who are in the early stages of declaring bankruptcy (not the deepest pockets). Whereas creditors (big banks) probably have more sway, and would benefit from chapter 11 to be
624.
by lend000 6y ago
>So they quit I doubt most of the executives see themselves as personally responsible for the financial situations of their companies, especially during an unprecedented global economic shutdown. Not because they are any different from y
625.
by lend000 6y ago
What you're describing sounds nice but apparently the incentives don't support it (perhaps because it's better to keep the people who know all about their company than contract execs who know nothing about the company or perh
626.
by lend000 6y ago
Perhaps it would make more sense to you if the headline were phrased: "On eve of bankruptcy, US firms restore a fraction of executives' previous salaries with retention bonuses, now that their options and RSU's are worthless,
627.
by lend000 6y ago
If you read the whole comment, you will see we are probably in agreement. Corporate chapter 11 bankruptcy laws are too powerful, and shift too much power from creditors to shareholders, imo.
628.
by lend000 6y ago
Not in this case. That is the oversimplified emotional response you see in the comments, but it doesn't jive with reality. Let's say you are the COO of Hertz, making 300K salary and 1M in options. The shareholders vote for Chapter
629.
by lend000 6y ago
It isn't shareholder capital; it's almost always creditor capital when a public company is going bankrupt. It's a broken process when creditors don't get a vote in whether a company can apply for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (a
630.
by lend000 6y ago
While it looks immoral if you don't understand the mechanics, people are simply responding to incentives around bankruptcy laws. Nobody wants to try to turn around a bankrupt company at their old salary (with their old RSU's and o

More ›