Often this guy only tells part of a story - in this case, the NASDAQ changes may be somewhat necessary to encourage companies to IPO, and to avoid missing important companies in indices. We're seeing companies stay private a lot longer than we used to. I'm saying "may be" because I don't know a lot about it, but that aspect of the conversation is missing from the video - why did NASDAQ make these changes?
this is a unfounded proposition in the same line as "if we tax them they will leave". it makes absolutely no sense to throw away one rule to make it more enticing for the people outside of the rule when keeping them out was the purpose of the rule. we migth as well make muder legal by that logic.
Often this guy only tells part of a story - in this case, the NASDAQ changes may be somewhat necessary to encourage companies to IPO, and to avoid missing important companies in indices. We're seeing companies stay private a lot longer than we used to. I'm saying "may be" because I don't know a lot about it, but that aspect of the conversation is missing from the video - why did NASDAQ make these changes?
this is a unfounded proposition in the same line as "if we tax them they will leave". it makes absolutely no sense to throw away one rule to make it more enticing for the people outside of the rule when keeping them out was the purpose of the rule. we migth as well make muder legal by that logic.
I think your example of "if we tax them they will leave" is off-base. Because that is absolutely, most certainly, the case.
https://www.wsj.com/opinion/the-blue-state-exodus-enriches-r...
https://finance.yahoo.com/economy/policy/articles/happening-...
most of the video is explaining the xAi scam (and ignoring starlink ozone pollution cost)
hear the main point on this time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X6YzlY_8tM&t=562