or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Crowley

How on earth can one be a "Keynesian Marxist"?  Keynesian theory is strongly entrenched in free markets.  
A mixed bag, to be sure, but I found some gems in there and am grateful for the dozen or so singles of the week that turned into EP or album purchases, especially Laura Marling's Night Terror back in 2008, which lead to four albums (and one current preorder), and a half dozen live concerts.  I'd probably have got there anyway, still, thanks iTunes.   But hey, if Apple want to scale back their promotions that support and promote a wide variety of artists in favour of...
Crikey, it's speculation about an unannounced (possibly never to be announced) product guys. Different priorities, different opinions, and well-trodden territory; no need to shout anyone down. Keep some perspective and lose the CAPS, the exclamations, and the hostility please.
Wah wah wah, hate hate hate, blame blame blame. Entirely expected ranting. "All unions are scum"? Give me a break
Thanks for the bullet lecture, but while those steps are plausible, you are missing the first one, which is the shareholder coalition with a large enough vested stake that they can push this through.  They would be the ones taking Apple private, Apple wouldn't be buying itself to own itself, since such a thing is impossible.  Apple would be buying out the other shares to reduce the shareholder pool down to a select few.  Even that is stretching credulity because of the...
Yes, because the stock has only a passing relationship to results, whereas it is directly related to expectations. If expectations of Apple, whether through realisation of results or any other factor, are lowered, then the stock price will follow suit.
No, because at the end of it, after they've most likely bankrupted themselves, there will be one guy holding the one remaining share, that has the worth of the entirety of Apple plus cash (or more likely, minus debt). Apple has been taken private, at great cost to the corporation, and for the sole benefit of the last shareholder who didn't sell. So what's the point of that?
That article is nonsense. Apple does not have the cash to buy itself, it never will since the cash Apple holds is part of its valuation - i.e. the rest of the company would have to have zero or negative value, and crucially a company is not allowed to own itself, it is not legally possible under company law.
This decade, next decade, who has the money to buy Apple to take it private unless the stock tanks? Apple is among the most valuable companies on the planet, no entity short of a state, or a coalition of either the other most valuable companies on the planet or the richest hedge funds, could possibly afford to take Apple private.
You call them lies but offer no contrary evidence. The NYP article had little supporting evidence either, and was little it did was culled from very narrow sources. The link provided, that you call lies, on the other hand, has a plethora of sources and supporting evidence.So your distaste doesn't seem to be swelling from the scientific method, but from an emotional reaction, which is poor science. If you claim to stand for science then walk the walk and address the...
New Posts  All Forums: