> worst about the SpaceX IPO is Nasdaq changing their inclusion rules
Nasdaq 100 has always been marketed as a tech-forward index. It would be a bit ridiculous if they didn’t include the most value tech companies on the market.
There was a potential scandal at S&P. But it didn’t happen. My personal guess is a lot of finance influencers latched onto this story. When it didn’t pan out they tried to maintain credibility by shifting it onto the Nasdaq 100, where it doesn’t make sense.
> Nasdaq 100 has always been marketed as a tech-forward index. It would be a bit ridiculous if they didn’t include the most value tech companies on the market.
What if they floated only .01%? What's the cutoff for it being ridiculous not to include?
> What if they floated only .01%? What's the cutoff for it being ridiculous not to include?
You’d probably still include it, at least for a tech index. But you’d underweight it relative to float for indices published for funds. (The pure play index would weight it wholly because informationally it’s still a whole company.)
The timing isn’t great. But this was being discussed for a while. If it were only SpaceX, I’m doubtful the rules would have changed. But a tech index not including SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic and SK Hynix is a bit silly. And in the end, on index inclusion, the stock still fell.
...such thoughtless justification is not really disproving comparison to "anything goes" discourse of other platforms with a nonsense appeal to empty normalization
100% designed to offload an empty bag onto retail investors
SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy
It has no real sustainable business unlike SK Hynix, very much like OAI and Anthropic
What's silly is propping up ephemeral companies that burn resources and produce nothing
This was a popular meme on Twitter and Reddit and YouTube, granted. The math doesn’t make sense with an index like the Nasdaq 100. But I’ll admit it’s a good story.
> SpaceX is propped up entirely by government subsidy
These companies are built on little more than "a good story" for politicians to sell to voters ..."i voted in Congress for that!"
You're arguing semantics
Economic math is being leveraged against innumerates as euphemism and obfuscation of same old avarice and political corruption. Biology is self selecting. There's no using rhetoric to wave off the ground truth is just a minority of the total population ensuring their own lived experience is put above everyone else's
No it is not. Appeals to equality of condition have existed for centuries. Among them are that term used verbatim.
Ignored the other points and redirected to the least salient. Will take it as acceptance you realized how silly your carrying water for people who don't know or care you exist is.
Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more.
In this comment [1]? Seriously, what salient points were you trying to make?
Nobody is arguing anything is fairly valued. That's your straw man. There's a bit ironically complaining about innumeracy in a series of comments with zero numbers. Then a general appeal to Twitter tropes around sheeple and whatnot.
If anything, the quality of this comment thread sort of points to the quality of the argument for SpaceX being included in the Nasdaq 100 being corrupt. It's based on vibes and feels. Which is a good story–it's clearly convinced a bunch of people to watch another video, click on another ad.
> Age of account makes it clear you need the social system to remain solvent as you're likely rich on paper. Nothing more
...genuine question, how are you connecting that observation to that conclusion?
Back n forth with someone who used "a bit silly" as a justification.
You set a low bar out the gate. I merely met you down there.
Numbers don't make a difference. They can be shaped to any argument like English or German because they're picked by the biases of the author.
You seem to live in a rhetoric derived neural hallucination and are completely detached from physical reality, meaningful thresholds for verification.
Will stick to the skills I picked up studying applied physics and electrical engineering for checking hypothesis and formal verification. No interest continuing a conversation with a functional illiterate who cannot reason outside their native cultural bubble.
To paraphrase Feynman, doesn't make much sense to get hung up on the syntax and their semantics.
If you're so sure you're ignorant of those topics why so sure those measures are meaningful? Why answer what may just be some words you know but irrelevant to the context?
Can you prove the so-called experts know better? Or are you just deferring as you have been socially trained to? Maybe economists have over complicated things and you're too ignorant to know.
Society runs on hearsay. Heard that's how it works as kids, now say that's how it works.
Stats are just euphemism for what happened. For history. They’re not a meaningful basis for next steps. They cannot predict exactly the future; what stats showed covid would occur in 2020 exactly? Not just general appeals to stem a future pandemic.
Why then are economists analysis of history meaningful to future needs?
Like gibberish population forecasts saying 12 billion by 2100! while birth trends now show a halving of population by 2080, a whole lot of priors need to be revisited.
Strong, weak nuclear forces, gravity, and electromagnetism; the fundamental forces of physics that give rise to all we see and know; do not mandate a whole lot of the crap ideas humans babble on about.
How much of your money did they take? Are you one of those people that went all in on WallStreetbets?
Who should be at the gambling commissioner that allows such things? Should people be made Wards of the state and finances placed in Trump's noble stewardship?
I didn’t consider that angle—thanks. I don’t day trade and don’t think anyone should. Lots of folks do anyway, however, and then they predictably lose money. It should be similarly predictable that they’ll then get upset and lash out, sometimes in the correct direction, often not.
(And the influencers pitching day trading and whatnot, lo and behold, are probably also selling the corruption of indices and why you should buy their crypto to not be a "simp" or whatnot.)
Mostly like I think they simply long for communal property ownership with a benevolent overseer that invests and distributes resources according to values that match their own.
Therefore they are offended that private individuals can allocate as they choose, and make losing gambles on other private institutions.
Some of these people were taught indexes are safe havens, and recoil at the idea they might not be safe as milk.
When faced with an information asymmetry (lack of knowledge of other posters) you engage in a kind of phrenology... taking a few sentences of others and filling in huge gaps in your knowledge with biases that you cannot confirm are true and meaningful
Grammatically correct sentences you can come up with are not at all guaranteed to be accurate.
Sincerely... stop it. Get some help. You're a typical human dimwit. Your grasp of contemporary economic language is not a sign of correctness. Just your own limited vocabulary and literacy. You're repeating language you memorized. You're not solving the gap in information.
Surviving this long does not mean you are especially
Indirect realism or the distinction between noumena and phenomena does not mean a model is inaccurate, and it certaianly doesnt mean your hot take is the correct one.
Yeah I know, patronizing random nobody. Way to go with the only option when the potential for inaccuracy is pointed out. "It might not be inaccurate!"
Real big brain stuff wrapped in copy paste of philosophical twaddle.
Not really disproving other posters point HN discourse is better than anywhere else. Random comments about others that might be wrong are not really focus on truth.
I think it is largely memes, but I think that is at the heart of the meme and why it replicates. Most of the time this is more intuitions than explicit convictions about how the world should operate.
That sombody should fix all these messy distrubted market process by replacing it with an engineered solution.
The obvious counterpoint is to direct them to who would be directing that top down system.
Everyone can get behind an omnicient and benevolent central planner on paper.
Nasdaq 100 has always been marketed as a tech-forward index. It would be a bit ridiculous if they didn’t include the most value tech companies on the market.
There was a potential scandal at S&P. But it didn’t happen. My personal guess is a lot of finance influencers latched onto this story. When it didn’t pan out they tried to maintain credibility by shifting it onto the Nasdaq 100, where it doesn’t make sense.