I feel you keep on repeating a pretty nonsense argument. How would you feel if someone told you "you could have lived in London or the UK had you entered in 2018 but now we don't let anyone live there whose username starts with an 'n'" or "had you just chosen a government career then you would have been allocated more oxygen to breathe, unfortunately you are not part of that group and get to cough and suffocate". Point being, there are things in life that should be available to those who want to partake, not for free, but for a fairly valued price. You keep on making the point that investment opportunities don't have to and should not be fair. Some privileged few get to invest and others don't. Well, that's your view and thats the current modus operandi, but my argument over the past several pages is that it does not have to be that way. It makes me wonder whether you would have told women 80 years ago that they should just accept that their life aspirations are gonna be between the kitchen stove and bedroom. Challenging the status quo and not accepting what seems to be currently hard to change is the hallmark of how we got here today from the caves and life as gatherers and hunters. So, I guess we need to simply agree to disagree on this topic. It starts to feel a bit like we are making the 3rd round the same circle
You have a right to invest in openAI. (We agree on this). OpenAI doesn’t have an obligation to take your money. They can take whomevers money they choose. (You disagree with this). why would OpenAI want totals investment from Microsoft and Kleiner vs you?
Nothing is worse than the government getting involved with private companies. This week in Trumponomics: POTUS is on an investment spree https://finance.yahoo.com/news/this...otus-is-on-an-investment-spree-140519231.html Investors momentarily lost their minds on Aug. 22 when President Trump confirmed that the US government was planning to take a 10% stake in chip giant Intel (INTC), and the stock price surged. That’s crazy, because nothing could be worse for a company than the government — any government — getting involved and telling the CEO what to do. Trump’s deal would give the US government a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for federal subsidies included in the 2022 CHIPS Act, which President Biden signed into law. Trump called the arrangement a “great deal.” Free marketeers howled. “A terrible decision, bad for almost everyone,” Scott Lincicome of the libertarian Cato Institute said on social media. “Bad for Intel's long-term viability, as politics, not commercial considerations, increasingly drive its decisions.” Trump is on an investment spree comparable to a hedge fund founder who has raised billions in capital and is ready to start buying. Except Trump’s capital is the power and credit of the US government. He’s using Washington’s power to grant subsidies, approve or restrict foreign trade, grant security clearances, and regulate commerce to assemble interests in a portfolio of companies that extend his personal authority to the boardroom. The CHIPS Act contained no provision for the government taking a stake in any company. All it did was establish incentives for chipmakers to do more research and make more semiconductors in the United States. Trump has called the CHIPS Act “horrible,” and as president, he has considerable authority to change the way the executive branch administers subsidies approved by Congress. Trump seems to think the government should get an ownership share in exchange for subsidies Intel has already received under the CHIPS Act and could receive in the future. That’s far beyond what Congress intended, and lawsuits to block the deal by shareholders or other interested parties seem likely. If the Intel deal somehow goes through, Trump could try to take a government stake in every other company that has received CHIPS money, including Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM), Samsung (005930.KS), Micron (MU), Global Foundries, and many smaller companies. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently suggested this was part of the plan. By the same logic, the government could take ownership in any company that ever received any type of government subsidy, such as clean energy credits contained in the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Investors bidding up Intel’s share price might think a quick infusion of government cash could help stabilize the foundering tech giant. Maybe they should think more about all the problems such a Trump put would cause. “A US government stake would not solve Intel’s challenges, which are strategic in nature,” Eurasia Group analysts wrote in an Aug. 21 report. “Even a small government ownership share raises the specter of meddling by authorities. The idea that companies owe an extra payment in exchange for government support sets a troubling precedent. This approach could introduce emerging-market style political risk into the US economy.” A banana-republic vibe might be exactly what Trump wants. The modus operandi during his second term is to gain as much leverage in as many realms as the limits of presidential power will allow. His targets in the business world are ambitious and maybe unprecedented. Trump recently made a deal with Nvidia and AMD in which the government will receive 15% of the revenue they earn from semiconductor exports to China — which require an export license approved by the Trump administration. It’s a bald pay-to-play scheme that may not survive legal challenges, but still sends the message to CEOs that any deal requiring government approval also requires a payment of tribute to the approvers. In June, Trump approved the purchase of US Steel by Japan’s Nippon Steel — which was blocked by the Biden administration — provided the US government receives a “golden share” in the new company that gives the president the unique ability to intervene in strategic corporate decisions. “We have a golden share, which I control,” Trump said. Some of Trump’s corporate takeovers are stealthier. He withheld routine approval for a merger involving Paramount and Skydance until the company agreed to a generous legal settlement involving its CBS subsidiary and canceled comedian Stephen Colbert's show. He has threatened Apple (AAPL) and other companies with tariffs specific to their products, only to relent when they announce domestic investments or other moves Trump can tout as wins. Trump browbeat Coca-Cola (KO) into making soda with real cane sugar, perhaps to reward sugar-industry barons who happen to be political supporters. He has also muscled a dozen big law firms into doing pro bono work for his pet causes. The US government has gotten directly involved in specific businesses before. But that’s usually because of an economic emergency. During the financial crash in 2008 and 2009, Uncle Sam became a major shareholder in huge companies such as insurance giant AIG (AIG), General Motors (GM), Chrysler (STLA), and dozens of banks that might have failed without federal intervention. But the government generally unwound those ownership positions as quickly as market conditions would allow. There’s no emergency behind Trump’s corporate power grab. The goal isn’t to keep endangered companies afloat until they can get back on their feet. It’s to give Trump control over certain corporate decisions at moments when it might be advantageous to him. When might that be? Well, Intel has big developments underway in Arizona, which has become a crucial swing state in national elections. It has another big project in Ohio, which flipped one Senate seat from Democratic to Republican last year. Democrats hope to flip it back in 2026, something Trump will probably pull every lever to prevent. Trump’s golden share in once-iconic US Steel is like a slush fund Trump might be able to tap to gin up blue-collar support in Midwestern swing states whenever the moment is right. Extra assembly line shifts? More overtime pay? More investment in old, inefficient Rust Belt factories? All it takes is a snap of the golden fingers. Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders applauded Trump’s plan to nationalize Intel and other chipmakers. Sanders is the same guy who co-authored the Green New Deal, which would have entailed a government takeover of the transportation and energy sectors for many dubious reasons, including promoting “justice and equity” and “repairing historic oppression” of certain ethnic groups. Trump’s motivation is obviously different, but at a certain point, socialist central planning and Trump’s attempted hostile takeover of capitalism start to look like the same thing. Stock buyers beware.
the party of small government, freedom, and self reliance double thinking their way to fascism. Trump is probably going to succeed in taking over America the way Putin did and the way the communist party did. Russia and China hate us for our freedoms so we need to be more like them.
Yes, how do you think private firms are approached? There are also platforms like hiive and https://www.nasdaqprivatemarket.com/ and others. You said you have been in tbills since December which says a lot and explains why you don't understand returns
Did you hold through April? Why didn't you sell in early April and buy the tariff low? Seems pretty dumb.
April was a buying opportunity for me. I am not an elite trader just a mediocre investor. I did recently exit FICO at what might be its low which makes me sad.
through brokers and investment bankers. Its relationship based but you can have a relationship if you 1. Have the capital 2. The expertise to be a credible buyer and you win on providing the best terms and value proposition