rb

Probably somewhat trolling. I am afraid that liberals are going to ban anything they don't like as "hate speech" though. As I pointed above, banning flags of traitors and groups that committed atrocities are quite common and not brought to you be raving "libruls".

So you're just trolling. Edit: At least Scottie was honest about it.

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go even though it offends group Y. That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols. Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there. I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor? What's the thing with Germany? Are you under the impression it's some sort of tyrannical society that lacks freedom? When you are talking about the confederate flag, you are talking about the Confederate Battle Flag. When it comes to acts of war, there have been many wars. Sometimes countries are allied, sometimes they fight. But without fail, every country in the world looks down more way more harshly on its traitors than it enemies. Now that you've also brought Japan, Pearl Harbor was attacked under the Imperial Army flag of Japan. Which Japan itself removed after WW2. While the US occupied Japan they effectively also banned the Japanese flag over there. Speaking of tolerance, I don't think anyone would be ok with a bunch of ISIS flags flying around just because the folks that do so "enjoy" it.

The Canadian flag didn't even exist when those things happened. For the most part Canada didn't even exist.

Agreed. Anything that does not include lockdowns is waved away....with some non-explanation. The fact is what is proposed in US and western countries is much more difficult to follow by people than what Japan ever asked their citizens. How difficult is to change your car air to Fresh, or keep your window open once a while. Yes there may be some work involved in changing the settings of office ventilation systems but they made it part of the guidelines. How difficult is it to not talk in elevator or other crowded place? But US authorities never told people to even try them. Most of the things are not hard. How hard is it to put on a mask? Is it done?

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go even though it offends group Y. That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols. Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there.

I think it'll suck for everyone.

That is precisely EPS. It's just not Earnings per share. It's EBITDA per share. EBITDA is a non-GAAP measurement, hence the non-GAAP EPS. It's still an "E" lol.

Really? Coke at 80x PE was a brave new world? Sure, sure, that's one example. But the stock market as a leading indicator is a bunch of crock. If we look at it it's not very good at predicting much of anything. overall it's somewhat more right than it is wrong. But a great indicator it is not.

ugh... Redit

Check out his twitter feed. He's 100% for real. You'll loose some time you won't get back but it's good for a chuckle.

Are those revenues that one pulls out of one's ass?

I think 2020 is far worse than 1999. Compared to what’s going on right now pets.com looks viable in retrospect. I think it should just IPO again and I bet it would surge because if the nostalgia value. What's making you say that 2020 is worse than 1999? I remember stories on places like 20/20 (or something) about how much money people were making. 20/20 is so 1999. They don't go in 20/20 anymore. I think these may be for the history books so we can talk about them in 2039. Enjoy :)

I think 2020 is far worse than 1999. Compared to what’s going on right now pets.com looks viable in retrospect. I think it should just IPO again and I bet it would surge because if the nostalgia value. What's making you say that 2020 is worse than 1999? I remember stories on places like 20/20 (or something) about how much money people were making. NKLA market cap is now bigger than Ford or Fiat Chrysler....... :o Let's party like it's 1999!!!!!!! Da Faq? ???

Speaking of the free trading. Didn't this happen with the 1999 as well? If I remember correctly that's the era that the discount brokerages came around. Sure free has much more allure than cheaper so it's attracting more people. But going from $100 a trade to $20 a trade is a hell of a bigger reduction than going from $5 a trade to $0 a trade.

USA! USA! USA!

I see

What is an appropriate time period?

What does that even mean? Is it that a company's history of reliable profitably does not matter in investing?

The question is posed is not social benefit - how much money has the society saved per launch. The question you posed was on capital allocation. That is how much money has Space X made per dollar invested for its investors?

Problems tend to happen with new aircraft problems. For example the Dreamliners had a tendency to catch on fire (fire is very bad on an aircraft). DC-10s had an explosive decompression problem. Both were fixed and both became highly successful platforms. There are other examples I could mention. There usually are some problems with new aircraft platforms just like there are with new cars. They usually get worked out. But if you want to talk about capital allocation there must be a profit. As in a return on capital. Otherwise the equation does not work. Boeing has plenty of years on delivering on that. How many years does space x have?

Yeah. The 737 Max is my evidence. As they say--more than just one cockroach in the kitchen. When they gonna fly the Max again? How much capital has Boeing soaked up in its space launch program vs SpaceX? Better look closely buddy. You can start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System Hint: cost per launch: $500M to $2B; Project cost: over $18 Billion (so far) The thing is you don't know how much capital has been burned. That's the point of space x being private. 737 max is a problem and companies sometimes have problems. But Boeing has been profitable for a long time. When is the last time that Space X or a musk affiliate company has been profitable?

One wonders how many cockroaches exist in the cozy kitchen of defense/old contractor relations with gov't contracts to companies like Boeing, Lockheed, etc. And remember: SpaceX got a grant of $3.1Bn from NASA to develop a crew capsule. Boeing got $4.8Bn. Spacex had its first successful test almost a year and a half ago, and just 1 week ago ferried two live astronauts safely to the ISS. Boeing had a test fail 6 mo ago due to basic software mistake (clock programmed incorrectly)--I'm sure not the only flaw. Since then, nothing. That’s taxpayer money. And Elon is the one who is no genius and a fraud, right boys? Elon is an inefficient/wasteful capital allocator in your minds? Enjoy regularly flushing those taxpayer funds down the Boeing toilet. The bias just lows from your post. You're sure the clock wasn't the only flaw? Any evidence? Do you have a security clearance by any chance? Whew is the brilliance of capital allocation? Boeing gets juice from the gov't and space x gets juice from the private sector. Is there a comparison on capital allocation and efficiency of companies or are we just gonna talk about the bullshit where we bleed our hearts about the tax payer?

Here's the guy behind Sweden's CV strategy doing his "...Ummm we fucked up" moment. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-03/man-behind-sweden-s-virus-strategy-says-he-got-some-things-wrong?sref=qzusa8bC

Seriously guys? This isn't anything amazing, we didn't discover space flight, we've been sending rockets into space for 50 years. This time we just made some money. I'm sorry but it's not exactly a momentous, world shaking event.