Well they lowered taxes on the richest (reduced income) and have increased spending (defense, ICE, ballrooms, what have you). So, exactly as predicted.
Deficit spending is one place where the major parties are in complete agreement. So it just wastes political capital, unless you see Thomas Massie somehow amassing a majority of Congressmen interested in his issues.
It also doesn’t appear on the ALL CAPS list of campaign priorities: https://rncplatform.donaldjtrump.com/. The word “debt” doesn’t appear anywhere in the document. And the word “deficit” appears just once in the context of the trade deficit.
Trump was the first candidate to release a list of itemized priorities in small words and ALL CAPS so the average dumbass could understand. There are many, many things you can say about this list. But it’s very hard to inject ambiguity into what he was running on.
Kushner is neck deep in Saudi money, Trump is taking plane-bribes from the Qataris, and their crypto schemes pave an open road into their wallets… obviously the problem is Zionists.
Pay no attention to who has oil, how American oil interests — much less obvious ones as ancient as Bushes and Cheney — shape policy, forget the size of the economies or how many billionaires are in each category, openly splashing cash at POTUS. Numbers, boo.
Forget 9/11, do not look at Afghanistan the US was never there, ignore bribes from regional powers. Zionism is the real threat.
You see, The Elders from the malaria ridden unwanted leftover chunks of Jordan’s immaculate creation are pulling the strings of Great Satan. They do it through ‘elite donors’, donors so elite the Heritage Foundation has taken over an entire branch of the American government and in parallel obfuscated foreign funding to “elite” Universities has plagiarist anti-semites with deplorable ideologies smirking in Congress while explaining why The Intifada needs to be more present in American cities and schools. Natural conclusions of The Zionist plot. o_o
The interesting thing about name calling is that where attention is being pointed away from is often more important than the target. Logs and splinters… you know, from that Bible people used to pretend to have read, about an uppity Jew.
Miriam Adelson, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison gave Trump hundreds of millions during his campaign to ensure this war happened.
Netanyahu visited Trump 7 times leading up to this war in Iran.
Every geopolitical expert on this topic has weighed in on it concluding it was obviously a move that only benefits Israel and weakens the US on the global stage.
There were 2 checks on Israel’s power in the Middle East: Iraq and Iran.
It is no coincidence that the USA has invaded both.
After Iran falls, Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. They have ambitions to dominate the entire region, including Lebanon, Syria, and parts of Egypt. Just Google “greater Israel project”.
Dokku supports Kubernetes as a scheduler, utilizing k3s in the background. You don't need to think about Kubernetes other than if you want a custom chart or something on the cluster.
There are also plugins available that allow acl-based access, and Dokku Pro supports keys (and folks have built their own alternatives that do similar).
That said, disco seems neat. Always love seeing tools in the PaaS space :)
nice to see more people choosing docker swarm as an orchestrator. the idea with database management is good, been thinking about similar feature to introduce community recipes for databases and other services
maybe robot.txt should be upgraded with license specifics.
not for commercial use, etc.
so I believe all content is covered under fair use which to me means common crawl has a right to scrape everything and it's the user of common crawl to sort out the details.
Yeah, it's wild. But it's not like the P/E should be 30, what do you think would be fair?
That's the thing about SpaceX, some businesses are real businesses that can be modeled in normal ways, like the government launch contracts, and to some degree starlink.
Others, like ~all of xAI, and the starship stuff, are being valued completely independent of revenue. I predict the IPO investors will generally follow the analysis consensus today with those eye-popping numbers.
I remember in the 00’s when people would complain about how ridiculous a 30 PE was for tech stocks, and how no other stock was at that ridiculous price point except tech. Guess that starship has sailed.
The "official" value of a stock is it is the current best guess of the market for all future earnings until infinity discounted back to the present at some discount rate (to account for the time value of money). That price to earnings rate is 1, because it's the definition. The "E" in PE ratio, however, is for a different time period: traditionally just the trailing 12 months (or previous completed FY- for high growth companies you will sometimes see "last month's revenue multiplied by 12" or other guesses).
This calculation is why "growth" companies dominated the stock market during the 2010's: with the Zero Interest Rate Policy that most of the developed world had, the discount rate that the markets used ended up being basically zero. In which case a market player is indifferent between a dollar in 2020 and a dollar in 2040. So if a company had a 10% chance of being worth a trillion dollars in 2040, that was worth (0.1 * 1 trillion=10 billion dollars). But with a more traditional 4% discount rate then a dollar in 2040 is worth less than half of a dollar in 2020, and that means your 10% chance of being worth a trillion dollars in 2040 has less than half of the value. Even if nothing else changed about your business, just the discount rate changing halved the value of your company.
P(rice)/E(arnings) ratio of 1 would mean it pays for itself in the earnings period.
The earnings period is 1 year.
It would mean making 100% return on investment each year. Being that low is only possible if there's reason to think the business is extremely precarious and unlikely to survive.
P/E 30 means returns of 3.33%, P/E of 20 means 5%. These are sensible numbers given people have other investment opportunities.
P/E of Tesla being 400 or so means it would take 400 years of its own profits to be able to afford to privatise itself, i.e. returns of 0.25%; being that high is a gamble that future revenue/unit time will go up by a factor of about 20 to bring it into the sensible range.
The upper bound from the grandparent comment for P/E 500-1000, says the annual return is 0.1%, which is what I saw on various current accounts, not savings accounts, not special deals, current accounts.
Of course not. If the P/E was 1, every single public company would be immediately gobbled up by Private Equity firms, who would make their money back after a few years of operation and the rest would be pure profit.
I do not know the P/E ratio for your magic box, sorry.
A P/E ratio of 1 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $1 for every $1 of earnings.
A P/E ratio of 10 indicates that a company's share price is equal to its earnings per share, suggesting that investors are paying $10 for every $1 of earnings.
Which is the better deal? Neither! The first company could suddenly earn more per share and you will be better off. The second company could loose earnings per share and you will be worse off.
A P/E of 1 means you are paying exactly the earnings per share, which is the fairest and most non speculative price. You are paying what the company is earning.
But why should the fairest price be equal to exactly 12 months of earnings? Why not 1 month, or 100 months?
Is there something special about the length of Earth's orbit that makes it the correct ratio for converting flows to values? If a business were incorporated on Mars, would the fair price be one Earth year of earnings, or one Mars year of earnings? (The latter price would be 88% higher.)
Now you’re beginning to understand. Listen I have a degree in economics. I never wanted to economics because it’s all bullshit. It’s arbitrary measurements and it’s not a science.
It's hard to imagine this turn into 50-60% short term banger starting from a $1.75T market cap, I wonder if people will actually trip over themselves to buy. I had been thinking I wanted to jump on it to flip but at that price and the macro environment it may end up cratering before a pop. Seems like a sketchy buy.
It's 24 years old with 16 billion revenue. Suppose you had a warchest and had the option to buy SpaceX at 1750 billion, or to spend a fraction of that to replicate its technology. Could you?
I've seen estimates that SpaceX spent less than $50-60 billion in cash during its lifetime. That's in the range of its cumulative revenue + capital raised, too.
I just don't really see how this couldn't be replicated, if the market was big enough. But it seems to me that Space isn't that useful yet, and the market isn't that big yet, to the point that it doesn't warrant lots of competitors like the thinking on AI.
Even the SLS cost less than $50bn to develop, which is a lot, but only a fraction of what SpaceX is apparently worth.
Developing a new rocket like the Falcon 9, even a reusable one, would cost a private investor less than $10bn. It would take time, that is the hardest part. But in terms of cash, it is a fraction of this valuation.
Then a constellation like Starlink - again, we are talking $10-$15bn. Once you have the rocket, the satellite design is not going to cost much. The challenge is getting the regulatory approvals and getting the launch rate up.
Then developing something like Starship, again a few billions, certainly far less than $50 bn. A crew capsule too, that would be a few billion, but probable <$5 bn.
For a trillion dollars you could probably throw in a space station (the ISS was about $100bn), a few advanced orbiting telescopes, a human mission to Mars, and maybe an intensive exploration of Europa. Heck, why not land something on Pluto just for kicks.
Profitable remains to be seen, but it is undoubted that the potential resources in the solar system are (pun intended) astronomically valuable. Getting at them is "just" an engineering problem.
The float adjustment probably handles this for you? The tiny amount of float of that $1.75T means that for any large total market or s&p or whatever fund (VTI, SPY, etc), SpaceX is going to be a minuscule fraction of the fund.
Apple has a float of >99%. SpaceX is going to come out with 3-4% float. Since all big serious total market / whatever index funds are float adjusted, this means that SpaceX will be treated more like a company with $45B market cap, not $1.5T or whatever.
If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this.
If you buy VTI, then SpaceX is going to be like what, <0.1% of the fund? That is noise.
I am not smart with stock legal-ese but I pasting something I found in a different article here.
> To balance index integrity and investability, Nasdaq proposes a new approach for including and weighting low-float securities (those below 20% free float). Each low-float security’s weight will be adjusted to five times its free float percentage, capped at 100%. Securities with more than 20% free float will continue to be weighted at full, eligible listed market capitalization, while those below 20% free float will be weighted proportionally to preserve investability.
> The rule reportedly includes a 5x float multiplier for low-float stocks, which would require passive vehicles to treat SpaceX as if it had significantly more tradable shares than actually exist, essentially forcing funds to chase the price.
It sounds to me like a way to increase demand for low float stocks by treating the float higher than it actually is. Glad to hear the explanations about this.
> If you're buying most index funds, you should literally not care about this.
Disagree. Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price. Granted, I’d be more concerned if the fund manager was buying it without a requirement to. The issue still remains about why are we paying so much for this stock? Make it make sense?
>Buyers of index funds should care about fiduciary and waste. This is what this seems like at this price.
Right, but the whole point of index funds is that you're letting the market decide what's worth investing/buying (via market cap/free float weightings) and at what price. If you're making calls on what's "waste" or not, then you're no longer a passive investor and you're just picking stocks.
Fiduciary responsibility in this context is a large umbrella of responsibilities. They should be fighting the new nasdaq rules on behalf of us. As you mentioned, this forces them to participate in fleecing the passive fund holding public and undermines the whole point of index funds. I don’t see how a fund manager could just blindly take this rule change and not make a ruckus about how it’s forcing him to break their fiduciary obligations
Following the rules of the fund and being index is one thing. Sitting silently as this pump and dump is designed to fleece your clients, is something entirely different.
> Starting May 1, 2026, Nasdaq rules allow large IPOs (e.g., top 40 market cap) to join the Nasdaq-100 Index within 15 trading days. This forces index-tracking funds to buy new shares, often at inflated valuations shortly after listing, a "fast entry" rule designed for mega-IPOs like SpaceX or OpenAI
1. are your finances going to be screwed from overpaying for SpaceX IPO shares through your index fund? No because as you say, it's a small fraction of typical index funds.
2. Is this a form of financial malfeasance? I think yes. The average 401k has about $150k in it. Even if just 0.5% goes to SpaceX, that's $750 per American. That's a few hundred billion. It's serious cash. If that's going to overpaying Elon 3x or whatever it is for these shares, that's a travesty. Even if for each individual it's a tiny blip that doesn't show up in the annual ROI graphs, it's a form of corruption. Like the programmer infamous Salami slicing stories at banks.
If the SpaceX IPO is wildly overpriced, even if you have just 300k in your account, yo
at least the 3-card Monty guy is dealing with you one on one. These companies hire lobbyist to make the illegal, immoral sh*t legal. Easy to keep winning the game when you write the rules.
but this is the opposite right? they own the customer relationship. Amazon does the opposite. They control the customer relationship. Can the supplier raise prices possibly but so can they middle man. if they turn over the relationship to the provider then use bad business.
hi, I don’t normally promote here, but I feel compelled to ask if you’d like to test my thing. it’s a personal agent / API for creating and managing background cloud agents that I’m 100% committed to keeping open source & accessible as an alternative platform to putting all your eggs in one basket. there is also a desktop app and expanding the api to involve storage. kind of like agentic dropbox that can also do coding and has a full computer and ability to spin up N agents
Very much like the idea. Thanks for sharing. Noticed that you are pushing this fully anonymously and wanted to chat with you regarding a project that I’m building. Mind contacting me on the address in my profile?
reply