Just this guy, you know?

  • 0 Posts
  • 124 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 11th, 2023

help-circle


  • zaphod@lemmy.catoParenting@lemmy.worldIs it relatable?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    And I 1000% Believe my mom and her mom can take partial credit for my achievements.

    And I’ll all but guarantee you they did those things simply because they love you, not because of some grandiose idea of a “legacy” or a desperate need to live beyond their death.

    Planning for the future in order to care for your family and friends is an expression of love, not ambition.




  • zaphod@lemmy.catoParenting@lemmy.worldIs it relatable?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Never had any ambition or dreams that was greater than 1 life time

    Nope. That way lies delusions of grandeur. Life is short and I’d rather focus on living it today rather than worrying about a “legacy” I’ll never experience.

    If you want any part of you to achieve something past the one life you have, children are the only way ambition can continue

    And that way lies the kind of entitlement that leads parents to think their children’s lives are their own.

    You aren’t achieving anything past your life. Your kids are. Their ambition is theirs, not yours. Stop thinking you can take credit for it.


  • zaphod@lemmy.catoA Boring Dystopia@lemmy.worldGet rid of landlords...
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.

    Yes, but: why is the market in the state it’s in? It couldn’t be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices…


  • zaphod@lemmy.catoPolitical Memes@lemmy.worldEverybody Sucks Here
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    It’s mainly about protection of the people from the government.

    Lol sure there John Wayne.

    I legit can’t think of another country with people that LARP more about revolution than the US. Most affluent country in the world and you’re constantly imagining youselves forming up and fighting back against tanks and helicopters (or your fellow citizens who happen to vote for the other team). It’d be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and bizarre.





  • Shorting before the merger wouldn’t have made any sense: the stock price went from around $17.50 to over $50 within the first week of trading and probably won’t come back to earth for a while. Meanwhile borrowing costs, after that initial spike when the stock was at its highest, were astronomical, so it wasn’t economical to do it right after, either.

    The real 4D chess would be to get that lockup waived, short the stock now (borrowing costs have since fallen back to earth), sell your shares, then close out the short after the price drops (sure, you run the risk that the SEC goes after you for stock manipulation, but I doubt Trump cares).


  • Nope. Unless the lockup is waived or modified by the board, Trump cannot “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares (this language is well-tested boilerplate for any lockup agreement). In case it’s not clear, that covers using them to get a leveraged loan.

    Far more likely is the board simply waives the lockup which frees him to do whatever he wants, in which case my bet is he just sells off some or all of his stake 'cuz who gives a shit if one of his cult members catches the falling knife.


  • The board can vote to waive it. That’s… how boards work. They could vote to waive Junior’s and Nunes’ lockups, too, if they wanted to. The only recourse shareholders would have is a lawsuit.

    Edit: And if you don’t want to believe me, maybe you’ll believe a professional financial writer:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/banks-can-get-emissions-off-the-books

    Also, Trump’s shares are subject to a lockup agreement, so he’s not allowed to “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares for six months, which presumably covers using them as collateral for a loan (or appeals bond). But the agreement is between Trump and DWAC, and DWAC could just waive it. It is not best practices or anything, as a capital markets matter, to waive the lockup an hour after the merger, but I think it is possible. Ordinarily you don’t do it because shareholders will be mad about additional shares flooding the market, but (1) if he just pledges his shares to a bank, they won’t flood the market, and (2) the shareholders are presumably Trump fans and will be happy to help him fund his legal bills. Probably the stock would go up if they gave him a limited waiver for this.

    Edit 2: This, by the way, is why folks are so critical of the Tesla board and why Elon’s recent pay package was rescinded by a judge, who determined the board did not act in the best interests of the shareholders by approving that package; rather, they concluded the board was too close to, and too beholden to, Elon to be able to effectively negotiate that package.

    Boards are basically the last line of defense when it comes to things like pay packages and so forth, but that doesn’t stop shenanigans from happening, hence shareholder lawsuits, which are basically the final recourse for shareholders to hold boards to account.


  • People keep saying trump wasn’t prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.

    So, yes, he’s currently subject to a lockup agreement. But, the board can always waive that agreement, and given the board is made up of Trump acolytes, there’s no reason to take it too seriously (yes, if they did that, it could be subject to a shareholder lawsuit if a sale resulted in a plunge in the share price, based on the claim that the board was failing in its fiduciary duty, but by the time any such trial made its way through the courts, it probably wouldn’t matter).




  • They’re not.

    History has proven over and over again that systemic change doesn’t happen through voluntary individual action unless government creates incentives or nudges to drive that action.

    Admonishing people to eat less (or no) meat won’t solve the problem of antibiotic resistance any more than asking them to pollute less fixed global warming.

    If anything, asking individuals to sacrifice to solve a problem caused by industry will just harden people against action as it directs blame in exactly the wrong direction.