You also forgot to mention that the end product price goes up, the market shrinks, and the economy follows it.
Only if supply and demand were in equal balance in setting the price at the beginning.
If there was oversupply from dumping, that wouldn't happen at all. Then the price would move back towards the cost of production, and it would make future supply more stable and the market healthier. Businesses that rely on steel would see increased confidence in their future projections, improving their access to finance and making expansions more reasonable.
It doesn't matter if the ending price is below cost, because costs are already sunk into making the umbrella.
Umbrellas that lack a brand or unique aesthetic are a commodity item. The economic expectation is that the sale price eventually will equal the cost of materials. Note that that is always going to be below the cost of production!
Without regional arbitrage, the expectation would be that fungible umbrellas would eventually cease production, leaving only more expensive branded ones on the market, until at some point there was enough demand to restart the cycle with cheap umbrellas again. The commodity manufacturers will likely go out of business at the end of every cycle if they're not diversified.
The idea that it isn't viable to eat the whole cost is just silly. Of course they eat the whole cost, they go out of business more slowly that way than if they just sit on a warehouse of umbrellas and refuse to sell at a loss. Warehousing has costs, you can't just sit on it the way you might sit on a security.
Errr...you do realize the U.S. has been creating roughly 200,000 jobs over all for the past few years, yes? And you are in awe of 3000. In numbers, proportion matters.
These 3000 jobs are being talked about in isolation literally for the purpose of looking at proportions.
I'm not even convinced by your comment that you understand the difference between a proportion and an absolute amount. Sheesh.
I recommend 5 minutes of self-flagellation with a cluestick.
No, because since Harley-Davidson is not a commodity product, but actually a premium product whose sales are based on the brand, it will more closely match Intel, the manufacturer in the cited study. Steel manufacturers don't produce all those extra jobs, it is a much lower number because the products are all fungible with low margins.
So 1000 direct jobs lost manufacturing a brand-driven product would cause many more losses, probably over 4000 total, but adding 1000 steel manufacturing jobs would only increase the total workforce by maybe 1200-1500 jobs.
Don't forget to read the article before linking next time. Or geeze, at least scan it.
First, it was actually talking about the ratio of employees directly manufacturing something to the number of office workers at the same company.
Second, the source was studies of Intel, in the Portland, OR metro region.
And it is true; manufacturing jobs at Intel in Beavertron are directly connected to non-manufacturing staffing levels at related facilities, and that includes a lot of contractors who technically have a different employer, but whose jobs are still tied to the Intel facilities.
However, that does not add up to any sort of argument that adding workers at a commodity manufacturer would cause more jobs to be created. Commodities don't have the same sort of sales, management, and R&D support that an electronics hardware company has. Obviously.
I figured it out. "Make America Great Again" means either one of two things:
1: It's a commandment
Close, but no cigar. It is just a brand of Condiment that starts sales in about 2.5 years. It was originally a stake sauce, but had to be reformulated.
Orkn means seal in Old Norse. Neyjar means islands. So the name Orkney is a corruption of the words "Seal Islands." But it does not literally mean Orkn Islands, as the name isn't Orkneyjar but merely Orkney.
OTOH, the Old Gaelic name was Insi Orc, Island of the Orcs. But Orc in Old Gaelic means pig, as in a wild boar.
It appears actually that the ancient Pictish inhabitants had a Boar as the symbol of their ruling noble family, and the later Norse inhabitants simply took it to mean their own similar-sounding name, Seal, based on the place-names taken out of context. And the later Pictish (eastern Scottish highlander) residents dropped part of the Old Norse word for islands, but didn't go back to Orc from Orkn.
The phrasing "the Orkneys" is similar to that from Pliny, who called them the Orchades. But they were likely still actually called Insi Orc at that time.
Also, when a corrupted word has a suffix particle from a different language than the root, they generally combine to form a new root word, and would need a new suffix. This is not any contradiction, just a reality of the evolution of words.
Considering all the metal parts visible in the cam, they're definitely not long-term deployable. They're going to need new anodes even if they don't have any faults.
Cloud hosting only. But, not bad concept for that use.
Don't name your instances after your company. Select a neutral naming policy, and follow it.
It is bad enough when business data gets leaked, but why put a big flag on anything accidentally visible to let people know that they should snoop into it because they're not supposed to see it?
Splitting hairs finely within the margins is just silly.
Shorts and longs, without modifiers, are people holding short and long positions. People holding put options are holding short options, they're not holding shorts, and they are not "shorts" unless the context is already limited to options.
Lying isn't the same as, "He didn't tell me the details" though, or even, "I have no idea because he didn't tell me."
He has 4 days after the board votes to accept his offer to file an 8-K telling people about it. Unless he mentioned it in the quarterly 10-Q or annual 10-K filings, they don't get any update or warning that it is being considered, and they're not due any evidence. That's the absurdity of the complaints. No, there is nothing unusual about him not providing public evidence. The schedule for that is written right into the statute! Consumation of a deal is what they have a right to know about, not the beginning of a courtship, or the wooing of the board.
Short sellers aren't priced that the price went up - they're...
... priced that they lost so much money gambling, that they're going to be pricing lots of stuff that they used to just buy without pricing. And they've lost so much money that many of the things they're not even used to pricing now seem priceless. They're priced that they're priced out of their pricey prices.
Your words claim that manipulating stock is illegal in the abstract, but your examples are all cases of somebody getting personal gain out of the action.
Your argument is not supporting the distinction you're trying to make. You merely found additional specific behaviors that when combined with manipulation of a stock price, add up to something illegal. You have to do it for some sort of gain, though; it isn't illegal in the abstract.
If their isn't any sort of improper gain, then it is lawful stock manipulation. For example, if the CEO tweets: "Product A's new version is so awesome, everybody is going to just love it! I can see the future, and the future is Company and Product A!" Totally legal, even if the stock price goes [up or down].
Even worse, while the "shorts" aren't protected, the "longs" are! If you lie and the shorts lose money, that's not even regulated. If you lie and the shorts earn money, that is regulated because you harmed the longs, who are shareholders!
They're not just wrong, they're running the wrong direction from the starting line.
And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
People who never even heard of an 8-K before are filling up the comments with fretting over it not being filed, but they only ever heard people blathering about it, they didn't even look up what it is and when you need to file it.
It is certainly true that an 8-K filing would be required within 4 days of a board action attempting to take the company private. Also if they consummated an investment deal of some sort, they would have 4 days to file it. But there is nothing about filing it within 4 days of thinking about it, or within 4 days of telling somebody they're thinking about it, or within 4 days of scheduling a board vote that would itself only mark the beginning of negotiations instead of the consummation of the deal.
Almost any other 8-K filing would be an update because some detail included in the quarterly 10-Q or annual 10-K filing had changed. Announcing a possible new deal that wasn't mentioned in the 10-Q isn't going to need updating.
Shorting isn't an investment at all, it is just a "position" on an investment. The only person in that situation who is protected by securities law is the person going long; that's the actual investor that is involved. And they're considered to be harmed by the stock price going down, if it goes up that doesn't hurt them at all.
It is like worrying if gamblers can sue a sports team. No, they can't. Assuming that "case dismissed" counts as "can't," anyways. Sponsors and team creditors have a much higher likelihood of having a fraud case in a fixed sporting event.
420 is an auspicious number in Asia, and they needed a round number above the current price. I'm betting SoftBank is involved, and they found additional Asian investors; probably from Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. And I'd expect the Saudis to be a huge but totally silent partner.
Probably part of the solution is that by having a large silent partner that allows Musk to keep the control he needs, while allowing SoftBank to get the control they feel entitled to from the size of their investment. SoftBank is a technology company, they'd never accept being a silent partner in something that could affect their other investments. Whereas the Saudis would be looking at it more as a petroleum hedge, and they'd probably prefer being a silent partner.
But of course they want to shrink the size of the largest investments as much as they can. I would too, but little fish don't get to take as big a bite as Musk can manage.
Short sellers are not stockholders, they're position-holders. No, they're not due any information.
This lawsuit was designed to trick people like you. On the internet. To try to push the stock price down.
Securities law protects shareholders, not position-holders. It also only protects them from harm. That's a one-way protection; you're protected more from lies that cause the price to go down than lies that cause the price to go up.
The cases where people got in trouble when they lied and the price went up tend to be cases where they traded in the stock after lying or else tipped select other people off beforehand. If he didn't sell anything when the price went up, then it is unclear which shareholders were "harmed?"
Also, you don't work for the SEC, and if you did, you wouldn't be allowed to tell us anything. So there is no need to pretend you get to make up statements about them. It is far more likely that when they said they're looking into it, they meant they were looking into if he was making trades that benefited from his statement, since that is the main thing they check and people were acting so concerned.
Well, I understand that you take those words personally, and so are offended, but what else did your comment add? My comment was clearly directed at anybody reading, and attempted to explain the matter.
Your reply doesn't contain any substantive content at all; it isn't even directed at the general readership, but instead seems to be a personal response. And yet, it contains no information that could be useful to me. You didn't even think to include anything more than, "I'm triggered by the word neckbeard." My advice, think more carefully about what you're contributing to the conversation while whining about how much other people are contributing. See there, I took the time to include a potentially-useful comment.
You can't have an unrestricted goto and also good support for distributed computing. Did nobody tell you that they're ambitious, and they want their language to be usable on hard problems?
You can't have a Real Goto with a portable language anyways; the language must restrict it to the lowest common denominator, because different CPUs have different types of JMP variants available. Not even C can give you a generic version that is unrestricted.
They used to have one, and strings were only allowed to use valid, legal, properly enumerated Unicode. But they abandoned that because it didn't really allow for remediation.
Now they simply flag offensive strings, and leave it up to the application programmer to remediate.
So if you're using Julia you will need to write your own code that conducts invalid Unicode to the appropriate remedial function. Or not.
Slashdot Mirror
You also forgot to mention that the end product price goes up, the market shrinks, and the economy follows it.
Only if supply and demand were in equal balance in setting the price at the beginning.
If there was oversupply from dumping, that wouldn't happen at all. Then the price would move back towards the cost of production, and it would make future supply more stable and the market healthier. Businesses that rely on steel would see increased confidence in their future projections, improving their access to finance and making expansions more reasonable.
It doesn't matter if the ending price is below cost, because costs are already sunk into making the umbrella.
Umbrellas that lack a brand or unique aesthetic are a commodity item. The economic expectation is that the sale price eventually will equal the cost of materials. Note that that is always going to be below the cost of production!
Without regional arbitrage, the expectation would be that fungible umbrellas would eventually cease production, leaving only more expensive branded ones on the market, until at some point there was enough demand to restart the cycle with cheap umbrellas again. The commodity manufacturers will likely go out of business at the end of every cycle if they're not diversified.
The idea that it isn't viable to eat the whole cost is just silly. Of course they eat the whole cost, they go out of business more slowly that way than if they just sit on a warehouse of umbrellas and refuse to sell at a loss. Warehousing has costs, you can't just sit on it the way you might sit on a security.
Errr...you do realize the U.S. has been creating roughly 200,000 jobs over all for the past few years, yes? And you are in awe of 3000. In numbers, proportion matters.
These 3000 jobs are being talked about in isolation literally for the purpose of looking at proportions.
I'm not even convinced by your comment that you understand the difference between a proportion and an absolute amount. Sheesh.
I recommend 5 minutes of self-flagellation with a cluestick.
No, because since Harley-Davidson is not a commodity product, but actually a premium product whose sales are based on the brand, it will more closely match Intel, the manufacturer in the cited study. Steel manufacturers don't produce all those extra jobs, it is a much lower number because the products are all fungible with low margins.
So 1000 direct jobs lost manufacturing a brand-driven product would cause many more losses, probably over 4000 total, but adding 1000 steel manufacturing jobs would only increase the total workforce by maybe 1200-1500 jobs.
Don't forget to read the article before linking next time. Or geeze, at least scan it.
First, it was actually talking about the ratio of employees directly manufacturing something to the number of office workers at the same company.
Second, the source was studies of Intel, in the Portland, OR metro region.
And it is true; manufacturing jobs at Intel in Beavertron are directly connected to non-manufacturing staffing levels at related facilities, and that includes a lot of contractors who technically have a different employer, but whose jobs are still tied to the Intel facilities.
However, that does not add up to any sort of argument that adding workers at a commodity manufacturer would cause more jobs to be created. Commodities don't have the same sort of sales, management, and R&D support that an electronics hardware company has. Obviously.
That reminds of an ancient Hallmark teaching, about a racist guy with two wolves trapped inside him, one good and one bad.
Don't feed this fantasy. Don't sentence yourself to Hallmark Hell. There are other solutions.
The door plate of my Nissan says it was made in the USA by Ford, but the engine and drive train were definitely made in Japan.
Sorry, "stake sauce" was supposed to be followed by a clever zombie joke, but I came up short. Anybody?
I figured it out. "Make America Great Again" means either one of two things:
1: It's a commandment
Close, but no cigar. It is just a brand of Condiment that starts sales in about 2.5 years. It was originally a stake sauce, but had to be reformulated.
Give or take ++
Your attempted pedanticism is false. So lame.
Orkn means seal in Old Norse. Neyjar means islands. So the name Orkney is a corruption of the words "Seal Islands." But it does not literally mean Orkn Islands, as the name isn't Orkneyjar but merely Orkney.
OTOH, the Old Gaelic name was Insi Orc, Island of the Orcs. But Orc in Old Gaelic means pig, as in a wild boar.
It appears actually that the ancient Pictish inhabitants had a Boar as the symbol of their ruling noble family, and the later Norse inhabitants simply took it to mean their own similar-sounding name, Seal, based on the place-names taken out of context. And the later Pictish (eastern Scottish highlander) residents dropped part of the Old Norse word for islands, but didn't go back to Orc from Orkn.
The phrasing "the Orkneys" is similar to that from Pliny, who called them the Orchades. But they were likely still actually called Insi Orc at that time.
Also, when a corrupted word has a suffix particle from a different language than the root, they generally combine to form a new root word, and would need a new suffix. This is not any contradiction, just a reality of the evolution of words.
Considering all the metal parts visible in the cam, they're definitely not long-term deployable. They're going to need new anodes even if they don't have any faults.
Cloud hosting only. But, not bad concept for that use.
Don't name your instances after your company. Select a neutral naming policy, and follow it.
It is bad enough when business data gets leaked, but why put a big flag on anything accidentally visible to let people know that they should snoop into it because they're not supposed to see it?
Splitting hairs finely within the margins is just silly.
Shorts and longs, without modifiers, are people holding short and long positions. People holding put options are holding short options, they're not holding shorts, and they are not "shorts" unless the context is already limited to options.
Lying isn't the same as, "He didn't tell me the details" though, or even, "I have no idea because he didn't tell me."
He has 4 days after the board votes to accept his offer to file an 8-K telling people about it. Unless he mentioned it in the quarterly 10-Q or annual 10-K filings, they don't get any update or warning that it is being considered, and they're not due any evidence. That's the absurdity of the complaints. No, there is nothing unusual about him not providing public evidence. The schedule for that is written right into the statute! Consumation of a deal is what they have a right to know about, not the beginning of a courtship, or the wooing of the board.
Short sellers aren't priced that the price went up - they're...
... priced that they lost so much money gambling, that they're going to be pricing lots of stuff that they used to just buy without pricing. And they've lost so much money that many of the things they're not even used to pricing now seem priceless. They're priced that they're priced out of their pricey prices.
Your words claim that manipulating stock is illegal in the abstract, but your examples are all cases of somebody getting personal gain out of the action.
Your argument is not supporting the distinction you're trying to make. You merely found additional specific behaviors that when combined with manipulation of a stock price, add up to something illegal. You have to do it for some sort of gain, though; it isn't illegal in the abstract.
If their isn't any sort of improper gain, then it is lawful stock manipulation. For example, if the CEO tweets: "Product A's new version is so awesome, everybody is going to just love it! I can see the future, and the future is Company and Product A!" Totally legal, even if the stock price goes [up or down].
Even worse, while the "shorts" aren't protected, the "longs" are! If you lie and the shorts lose money, that's not even regulated. If you lie and the shorts earn money, that is regulated because you harmed the longs, who are shareholders!
They're not just wrong, they're running the wrong direction from the starting line.
And rushing to sue even before an 8-K would be due.
People who never even heard of an 8-K before are filling up the comments with fretting over it not being filed, but they only ever heard people blathering about it, they didn't even look up what it is and when you need to file it.
It is certainly true that an 8-K filing would be required within 4 days of a board action attempting to take the company private. Also if they consummated an investment deal of some sort, they would have 4 days to file it. But there is nothing about filing it within 4 days of thinking about it, or within 4 days of telling somebody they're thinking about it, or within 4 days of scheduling a board vote that would itself only mark the beginning of negotiations instead of the consummation of the deal.
Almost any other 8-K filing would be an update because some detail included in the quarterly 10-Q or annual 10-K filing had changed. Announcing a possible new deal that wasn't mentioned in the 10-Q isn't going to need updating.
Shorting isn't an investment at all, it is just a "position" on an investment. The only person in that situation who is protected by securities law is the person going long; that's the actual investor that is involved. And they're considered to be harmed by the stock price going down, if it goes up that doesn't hurt them at all.
It is like worrying if gamblers can sue a sports team. No, they can't. Assuming that "case dismissed" counts as "can't," anyways. Sponsors and team creditors have a much higher likelihood of having a fraud case in a fixed sporting event.
420 is an auspicious number in Asia, and they needed a round number above the current price. I'm betting SoftBank is involved, and they found additional Asian investors; probably from Singapore, Taiwan, and South Korea. And I'd expect the Saudis to be a huge but totally silent partner.
Probably part of the solution is that by having a large silent partner that allows Musk to keep the control he needs, while allowing SoftBank to get the control they feel entitled to from the size of their investment. SoftBank is a technology company, they'd never accept being a silent partner in something that could affect their other investments. Whereas the Saudis would be looking at it more as a petroleum hedge, and they'd probably prefer being a silent partner.
But of course they want to shrink the size of the largest investments as much as they can. I would too, but little fish don't get to take as big a bite as Musk can manage.
Short sellers are not stockholders, they're position-holders. No, they're not due any information.
This lawsuit was designed to trick people like you. On the internet. To try to push the stock price down.
Securities law protects shareholders, not position-holders. It also only protects them from harm. That's a one-way protection; you're protected more from lies that cause the price to go down than lies that cause the price to go up.
The cases where people got in trouble when they lied and the price went up tend to be cases where they traded in the stock after lying or else tipped select other people off beforehand. If he didn't sell anything when the price went up, then it is unclear which shareholders were "harmed?"
Also, you don't work for the SEC, and if you did, you wouldn't be allowed to tell us anything. So there is no need to pretend you get to make up statements about them. It is far more likely that when they said they're looking into it, they meant they were looking into if he was making trades that benefited from his statement, since that is the main thing they check and people were acting so concerned.
Well, I understand that you take those words personally, and so are offended, but what else did your comment add? My comment was clearly directed at anybody reading, and attempted to explain the matter.
Your reply doesn't contain any substantive content at all; it isn't even directed at the general readership, but instead seems to be a personal response. And yet, it contains no information that could be useful to me. You didn't even think to include anything more than, "I'm triggered by the word neckbeard." My advice, think more carefully about what you're contributing to the conversation while whining about how much other people are contributing. See there, I took the time to include a potentially-useful comment.
You can't have an unrestricted goto and also good support for distributed computing. Did nobody tell you that they're ambitious, and they want their language to be usable on hard problems?
You can't have a Real Goto with a portable language anyways; the language must restrict it to the lowest common denominator, because different CPUs have different types of JMP variants available. Not even C can give you a generic version that is unrestricted.
a Code of Conduct for the language?
They used to have one, and strings were only allowed to use valid, legal, properly enumerated Unicode. But they abandoned that because it didn't really allow for remediation.
Now they simply flag offensive strings, and leave it up to the application programmer to remediate.
So if you're using Julia you will need to write your own code that conducts invalid Unicode to the appropriate remedial function. Or not.