Slashdot Mirror
Eric Schmidt To Sell Up To 42% of Stake In Google
derGoldstein writes "AllThingsD reports that Eric Schmidt 'plans to sell up to 3.2 million shares of his class A common stock in the company,' according to an SEC filing. 'The amount is equal to approximately 42.1 percent of his overall stake in Google.'"
Or we could have a better incremental tax system where dirt poor is not the bottom and fat rich is not the top.
That doesn't mean he's right. He sold a similar amount last year, and missed most of the growth in the stock price in the last month.
Here's a hypothesis:
Google beat the last challenge from the antitrust attorneys from Texas, but it can't count on the future.
Specifically, other states or federal entities could attack it, and then there's all of the EU, which traditionally takes a harder line on privacy violation and monopoly.
Schmidt is no dummy and so he's divesting a reasonable amount (less than half) of his stock to hedge against a potential catastrophic future decline.
Remember what happened to Microsoft. They basically floundered hard after an assault by the department of justice. If the same happens to Google, they'll have to put most of their plans on hold for a decade as well.
Futurist Traditionalism
It's news for a reason. It seems unlikely he is strapped for cash, and as he's acting Executive Chairman of Google, a significant stock sale has to mean he's convinced the market capitalization for his Outfit has peaked. Often, if you look way up ahead in the distance, you can just make out the Captain running ahead of all those rats.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Yes, because there's no poverty or starvation in Marxist countries at all right?
Nah. It is just that in Marxism, everyone is equally poor.
The choice isn't necessarily between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism...
Socialism to the point where people don't starve, can start over after failing and are given a decent chance to go to university, isn't so expensive that hard work won't be profitable anymore.
(Socialism to that extend, does however, encourage risk taking, as there's a system to help you if you fail).
It's often called liberal socialism, many/most countries in Europe (especially northern Europe) are quite successful with this approach.
In Europe taxes are spent largely on public works, public health, and public services, so taxes are not a net loss for citizens but contribute directly to their welfare and to the smooth running of society for the man in the street.
The difference in the US isn't so much in the rate of taxation, but what is done with your tax dollars. They're not spent for the social good to any large degree, but fund the huge military complex and benefit the rich more than the poor. (Here the rich pay much more tax than anyone else.)
The US "misery" problem to which you refer is much more deeply rooted than could be solved by changing the rate of taxation. It can't. Your society is structured to create misery.