$111 billion sheds a lot of gratuity as it moves from one place to another.
The "big deal" is what it does for the shareholders in black & white.
A number of those very major shareholding individuals who have the most to gain have been pushing for a deal forever, and naturally all the retail investors will be entitled to go along for the ride.
But probably a greater number of insiders who are pushing for the deal are not that major of a shareholder or even shareholders at all. Corporate employees who are higher-ups and in accessory corporations like banks and consultants within range, can often be subject to bonuses and commissions anyway which can motivate them en masse much more so than whether they had any nominal amount in their retail portfolio or not. There might even be a legislator or two who stands to gain somewhere along the line, sooner or later.
The number of people who are going to get rich without having to have been opportune shareholders can really make the difference.
The big shareholders were already rich or were going to get richer anyway.
That's probably what the extra $11 billion is for, for everybody else close to the deal, and that's even more incentive for them to expedite.
You can only imagine that one guy negotiated an extra 10% more than a $100 billion deal was worth, especially since the buyers could easily afford it. But then gets 10% of that so he gets a billion, bringing the final total to $111 billion so no other numbers need to be adjusted ;)
You could also say that Trump and a significant portion of the Republican party were weaponized by the rest of the party and are not so easily contained or controlled now.
You're really pointing out a couple fundamental principles where growth has been able to occur one layer at a time over a nonsensical foundation.
This doesn't lend it self to a sensible solution.
There's no way that computer code should have ever had any legal similarity to entertainment properties like Disney characters.
Plus so many people don't want to pay any attention to the way there's a big difference between entertaining software like games versus things which are needed before "machines" will even (barely?) run, or run more superbly which is not the same either.
And there's no way any "rights" should exist for an extended period.
Among other things these need to be corrected more so than ever (or AI will do it for us). The problem is it all needs to be sensibly reversed not gutted in one big shockwave. But AI is here to shock. It doesn't even take superintelligence, if the people who gradually caused the problem over the decades were below-average things would have come out better as long as their objectives were less predatory.
That is true and maybe this is one layer below of the nuance that I was talking at, I wanted a break from the constant news cycle or trying to find or constantly think about new projects and ideas and this constant cycle in many ways and hackernews is that sometimes for me.
Yet at the same time, its a cozy place and these articles and comments do amount to taking a simple mundane break at the same time. Sometimes though I used to believe that I have to write the perfect comment and so I will write extremely detailed comments (I do think that I have learnt a few things from them and actually got to some thoughts while writing that I couldn't have previously gotten), and* aside from that, there are times when Hackernews is cozy as well [where I don't worry about the perfectionism within the comment where I just talk to people because I am so impressed by them or just this sense of coziness and warmth in general at the same time too perhaps]* so yeah I would say that I agree with you on many levels. This blog has just been my humble attempt at trying to describe the former rather than latter though.
Also thanks for appreciating that its from the heart. I do consider it to be a very good praise and I think that although I worried that my writing would be unable to get the point across, I think that I was able to explain the emotions within the blog and maybe I am being semi competent at writing. These compliments help my confidence so thank you and have a nice day :-D
$111 billion sheds a lot of gratuity as it moves from one place to another.
The "big deal" is what it does for the shareholders in black & white.
A number of those very major shareholding individuals who have the most to gain have been pushing for a deal forever, and naturally all the retail investors will be entitled to go along for the ride.
But probably a greater number of insiders who are pushing for the deal are not that major of a shareholder or even shareholders at all. Corporate employees who are higher-ups and in accessory corporations like banks and consultants within range, can often be subject to bonuses and commissions anyway which can motivate them en masse much more so than whether they had any nominal amount in their retail portfolio or not. There might even be a legislator or two who stands to gain somewhere along the line, sooner or later.
The number of people who are going to get rich without having to have been opportune shareholders can really make the difference.
The big shareholders were already rich or were going to get richer anyway.
That's probably what the extra $11 billion is for, for everybody else close to the deal, and that's even more incentive for them to expedite.
You can only imagine that one guy negotiated an extra 10% more than a $100 billion deal was worth, especially since the buyers could easily afford it. But then gets 10% of that so he gets a billion, bringing the final total to $111 billion so no other numbers need to be adjusted ;)
reply