What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Grand Unified Election Thread 2: What is the difference between Biden and Dump?

Status
Not open for further replies.
MichVandal said:
Swamp is being drained.

If anyone else did that, you would be 1) fired and 2) brought up on charges of inside trading. I'm sure pretty much all of us are required to do Insider Trading training. These people have zero shame. And someone needs to explain why rich people so needed a tax break, when people can't eat.
Click to expand...

Why does any company, that can sell stock shares by the millions if they need to raise some operating capitall ever need a bailout at all?
 
rufus said:
Why does any company, that can sell stock shares by the millions if they need to raise some operating capitall ever need a bailout at all?
Click to expand...

Shareholders could sue the company for diluting the value of their shares. It's not like companies can issue treasury stock willy-nilly.
 
St. Clown said:
Shareholders could sue the company for diluting the value of their shares. It's not like companies can issue treasury stock willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

So let taxpayers make sure shareholders are not holding the bill? No thanks. If a company is in a bad state, and the shareholders don't realize that- it's not up to the tax payers to resolve that problem.
 
MichVandal said:
So let taxpayers make sure shareholders are not holding the bill? No thanks. If a company is in a bad state, and the shareholders don't realize that- it's not up to the tax payers to resolve that problem.
Click to expand...

America runs on the privatize the profits and socialize the losses principle.
 
ScoobyDoo said:
If Parler is supposed to be so wholesome why'd they let the Porn in?
Click to expand...

They don't want to become the next Gab. They want to stick around for a while and become a force amongst Cons. They were trying to bribe liberals to show up (if they had enough followers) but reneged on that. My guess is within 3 months they will back down from their "No Bots" mantra.

The problem they have is that it is 95% Cons many of whom post on other social media. Right now it is fun because they have Qtards and Trumpublicans running wild with stupid conspiracies and hope that Jan 20th will go their way. When it doesn't (because the Real World /= Parlerville) they are going to have a lot of issues. First and foremost is that Cons will get sick of just yelling at each other. They can go do that on 8chan or whatever the hell it is called now. They can't just discuss things in a vacuum their whole ideal is to troll the Libs. So they will split time with other SM slowly walking away from Parler because it gets boring. (there is already complaints of that) The ones who don't will be the violent ones and, much like with 4chan/8chan the more they talk to each other the more militant they become. Sooner or later, just like with other Con SM someone will do something violent and it will be traced back to things they said on Parler. This will then cause the "Influencers" on Parler to flee to not be associated with it. Parler then becomes the next Friendster...

So Parler is basically doing what they can to try and keep the base around until they can figure out a way to expand their users. Porn will help for a bit, Russian State Media being on their will keep things flowing for a while but as soon as Biden takes the oath Parler will be in trouble if they can't figure out a way to stop the bleeding that will occur. Cons with an IQ over 70 are already starting to kind of see how the echo chamber there isnt helping and are starting to poke holes in the bubble.
 
Handyman said:
They don't want to become the next Gab. They want to stick around for a while and become a force amongst Cons. They were trying to bribe liberals to show up (if they had enough followers) but reneged on that. My guess is within 3 months they will back down from their "No Bots" mantra.

The problem they have is that it is 95% Cons many of whom post on other social media. Right now it is fun because they have Qtards and Trumpublicans running wild with stupid conspiracies and hope that Jan 20th will go their way. When it doesn't (because the Real World /= Parlerville) they are going to have a lot of issues. First and foremost is that Cons will get sick of just yelling at each other. They can go do that on 8chan or whatever the hell it is called now. They can't just discuss things in a vacuum their whole ideal is to troll the Libs. So they will split time with other SM slowly walking away from Parler because it gets boring. (there is already complaints of that) The ones who don't will be the violent ones and, much like with 4chan/8chan the more they talk to each other the more militant they become. Sooner or later, just like with other Con SM someone will do something violent and it will be traced back to things they said on Parler. This will then cause the "Influencers" on Parler to flee to not be associated with it. Parler then becomes the next Friendster...
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

What will happen is it will bifurcate into two con factions -- the Psychos and the Really Really Psychos -- which will then scream at and demonize each other forever.

That's how it works.
 
St. Clown said:
Shareholders could sue the company for diluting the value of their shares. It's not like companies can issue treasury stock willy-nilly.
Click to expand...

So you can never issue stock, only buy it back? Sounds like that's what you're saying.

Just another variation of "rich people aren't allowed to lose money" capitalism.
 
MichVandal said:
So let taxpayers make sure shareholders are not holding the bill? No thanks. If a company is in a bad state, and the shareholders don't realize that- it's not up to the tax payers to resolve that problem.
Click to expand...

Ask Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue to explain that one to them.
 
rufus said:
So you can never issue stock, only buy it back? Sounds like that's what you're saying.

Just another variation of "rich people aren't allowed to lose money" capitalism.
Click to expand...

New treasury stock is sold every so often, but they limit the batch sizes. If you issue it to save the company, that’s going to be a huge issuance. That would cause the company’s current shareholders seeing the company if it were to survive. They’d argue that another method should’ve been used to raise capital, one that would minimize impact to shareholders.
 
rufus said:
So you can never issue stock, only buy it back? Sounds like that's what you're saying.

Just another variation of "rich people aren't allowed to lose money" capitalism.
Click to expand...

It requires a vote of (some governing body, depending on their corporate charter).
 
Kepler said:
The next what? Or is that the joke? Srsly, I've never heard of that.
Click to expand...

Gab was the original safe space Twitter alternative for the far right. It died on the vine after the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter used it to signal his attack shortly before he murdered a bunch of people and was subsequently denied hosting services by mainstream web hosting platforms.
 
The idea of a "totally free space to share ideas without fear of suppression" sounds great, but it invariably ends up as naziville.

I don't personally like the various algorithms used by the big SM companies, but if the alternative is Parler or Gab, then I guess it is what it is.
 
St. Clown said:
New treasury stock is sold every so often, but they limit the batch sizes. If you issue it to save the company, that’s going to be a huge issuance. That would cause the company’s current shareholders seeing the company if it were to survive. They’d argue that another method should’ve been used to raise capital, one that would minimize impact to shareholders.
Click to expand...

It's not to "save the company". it's to provide it with some operating liquidity.

With the amount of outstanding shares these companies have been spending the last 20 years buying up so the CEO can keep getting huge bonuses, I think they can manage.

If they need to do it to save the company, one, I doubt they have many shareholders left, and two, no one's gonna buy it anyway. Unless it's someone like Bain, who'll squeeze every dollar out of it that they can before discarding the worthless husk. .
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top