keernan

This is a gift link. The purpose of my post is to expose the intellectual fraud taking place. This is a "hit piece". It tells a story using labels in an effort to portray the people behind the story as "moderate" and the left as "extremists".

The story is sourced exclusively from two groups:

"Third Way": An organization financed by billionaires.

"Welcome PAC": A PAC financed exclusively by billionaires including in particular the Murdoch family of Fox News fame.

This is a real time look at how politics are played by the billionaires to shape the views of Americans - many of whom are hard working without the time to read more than the headlines and, if they do read the story, almost certainly do not have the time to research the sources.

Most importantly, this story comes from a source that has traditionally been considered fair and balanced by democratic leaning Americans. This is a hit piece targeting Americans who vote Democrat and want to shape their thinking about issues billionaires hate.

I can't access the article but it's my understanding the AI bit of SpaceX is a negative valuation (ie losing money like a gutted pig).

SCOTUS is the fly in the ointment with Constitutional Amendments.

The Bill of Rights were intended to restrict government action. When there were exceptions, the wording of the Bill of Rights made them clear. The Bill of Rights were intended to be absolute things the government never could do.

That is not how they work today. SCOTUS has changed the Bill of Rights to require citizens to affirmatively assert them and has ruled that citizens can consent to permit the government to engage in activities the Bill of Rights made clear were prohibited.

As a result, our lives are very different than what was originally intended. Today when the police pull you over for a traffic stop, the police engage in conversations they learn in police training - conversations that are explicitly intended to lead to the driver waiving his constitution rights - rights that were intended to be absolute unaidable automatic restrictions upon government conduct.

SCOTUS will always be the fly in the ointment.

>aggressive ignorance on HN

That's rich in view of the fact you are the one who is expressing aggressive ignorance. The truth is:

1. An ETF tracking a specific passive index is legally obligated to purchase the shares of a new company added to that index with zero discretion allowed no matter how irrational the pricing might be.

2. Contrary to what you've been spewing about ETFs adding the stock gradually over time, the truth is all ETFs make their full purchases BEFORE the company is actually even added.

Doubt it? Do a quick google search: How soon do ETF's tracking a specific index buy the stock in a new company added to the index they track?

So stop being a jerk with your personal attacks - especially when you don't know what you are talking about.

It would be helpful if you could provide a source supporting your thought that an ETF following a particular index would buy stock in the new company over what you describe as an extended period of time - as opposed to within a short few days.

I spent quite a lot of time before the SpaceX IPO learning how a change in Nasdaq 100 rules regarding adding a new company to its index, would impact ETFs whose prospectus tied them to the Nasdaq 100. The information I reviewed indicated the ETFs would add all of the new purchases immediately (within a matter of days following the addition of a new company to the tracking index).

Mutual funds and ETFs set forth a prospectus that is a legal document binding them by law to comply with how they operate. While an etf is free to create its own index, that is not the way the market works. Vanguard, Fidelity, iShares, BlackRock and the other major players, state in their prospectus what index the ETF will follow - such as the CRSP US Total Market Index to use one example from Vanguard's VTI etf.

That means Vanguard VTI tracks the stocks that are contained in the CRSP US Total Market Index. So, if CRSP adds a new holding to its US Total Market Index, Vanguard VTI is legally bound by its prospectus to add that stock to VTI and to do so in a manner that assures VTI returns track the CRSP US Total Market Index returns as closely as possible (meaning they own every stock CRSP does and in the same proportion that CRSP does).

This is not just a 'good idea'. It is legally binding upon Vanguard by virtue of the VTI prospectus.

I have to say it is incredibly annoying that the wealthiest man in the world is so thin skinned that every post on Hacker News that talks about him in ways he doesn't like gets flagged.

Of course Musk isn't doing it himself. He already bought Twitter so he could control what is said about him. And, as the wealthiest man in the world, he'd be stupid if he hasn't hired tens of thousands of people to monitor posts about him or his concerns and to downvote them (or whatever he wants). The cost to him for doing that would be similar to us spending ten cents.

If Musk's pressure had succeeded and the S&P and CRSP had changed their index rules, then the major indexes would have been legally obligated to buy SpaceX at the IPO price - or presumably higher because their own mass purchases would have driven the price even higher.

That was Musk's plan. It failed because he couldn't get the major indexes to cow tail to his pressure and demands.

Edit: My reference to the SEC is that they are charged with investigating market manipulation. And Musk was involved in the biggest attempt at market manipulation probably in history - trying to pressure private indexes used by almost every ETF in the world (S&P and CRSP) to change their rules which would have legally obligated those ETFs to purchase SpaceX within 15 days.

However, the SEC cannot investigate it because no laws would be violated despite the fact it would have been an incredible market manipulation.

In fact, the change in rules by Nasdaq 100 is a huge market manipulation that has taken place exactly as I describe - it's simply not as catastrophically large as it would have been had all the major indexes succumbed to Musk's demands.

If the internet is so dangerous that it requires every adult to obtain a government ID to get online, then yes, a 10 year old (or 17 yo if that's the age you want to use) is going to have to wait just like he/she has to wait to drive a car or buy liquor or cigarettes or pot.

Don't blame me. Blame the people pushing for a government ID that YOU must have before you can order your pizza.

The concept is straight forward:

1. Eliminate all the false flag attempts by governments and their supporters to use "danger to children" to require government ID for every adult to get online.

2. If the internet is so dangerous as to require ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners.

Musk tried mightily to get S&P to change their 12 month rule to 15 days but they refused. Nasdaq, however, caved to Musk and agreed to change the rules of its Index - from a 12 months wait to 15 days - in exchange for Musk agreeing to list SpaceX on Nasdaq's exchange.

There are ETFs that were issued tied to the Nasdaq 100 which are therefore legally bound to buy SpaceX. But the biggest immorality is the SEC allowing Musk's attempt to manipulate the market by: 1. Setting an IPO price for SpaceX (which absorbed xAi and its money guzzling losses) at unsustainable, incredibly inflated prices; and then 2. Putting incredible pressure on SP500 and other index makers to change their rules to force the purchase of SpaceX at those sky high prices (in an IPO, company gets to set the IPO price).

It's legal. At least in the eyes of the SEC which, of course, is an institution that is controlled by the wealthiest who control the markets, so of course it's legal.

But it is outrageous market manipulation that is fraudulent in its intent to enrich the wealthiest man on earth at the expense of ever wage earner putting her money into Index Funds.

Thank goodness the S&P and CRSP refused to change their rules. Otherwise the shifting of risk from Musk onto the shoulders of every working American would have been complete.

There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to:

- purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID)

- allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet

That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life.

And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains.

Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward:

If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do.

Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.

When I got my motorcycle license, state training was required. The thing they drilled into our heads - over and over - is: loud bikes save lives.