Well, shares are company value, not product value. And companies are valued by their ability to create value. A terrible decision usually doesn’t mean much, and share price fluctuation is mainly speculative in nature. A large company may survive a bad CEO, and create value down the road. Even a crashing company has value, as it may be split and sold with a profit, turning shares into cash.

All in all, as much as I hate, EA for example, they have a strong position and can easily eat up failed releases for years to come. Many of their releases are payed off with only pre-orders.

I don’t get the downvotes, this is my first assumption. And 1488 is my go-to joke. And what about those who were born if 69, are they all edge lords?

I don’t get this argument. The US government has invested into a tech development. Which means that spacex seemed to have a good base to pull that off. I didn’t see a line of other companies doing anywhere near that capability.

Also, everyone calls for government to take lead in doing stuff for the betterment of humanity, but the second that happened, everyone loses their minds. Make up your mind, are we ok with government doing stuff or not?

What about multiple of anything? How about 2 cars? After all, each car takes limited parking space and adds to traffic problems. How about eating more calories than one needs to live? Should we review all existing items that one can buy?

I agree, but limiting rights is not a good way to approach the issue. Raising taxation on 2+ properties is much better. And perhaps there are even better approaches, but an not an economist.

So disallowing renting. So you don’t control your property, which means you don’t own it but lease it.

This is problematic, since not being able to open your house is worse than having difficulties with obtaining it. I agree that generally having some people own a lot of housing units is bad, but not being able to own a house means communism. And not as a scare, but quite literally, as in definition.

Let’s say the mortgage is payed. Then the rent pays whatever the landlord decides to do with that money. Like literally any other transaction.

Unless they are not used for the betterment of society and are not thrown into the black hole of beurocracy.

That’s some alternative reality, you’re talking about. My government does try, and succeeds in bleeding every last penny that I earn.

Seems like that absolute lot here are just American Vs British pronunciation, and for me, who learned the British version make 0 sense.

Perhaps, if you could explain what “ethical” means in this context.

If nothing is different, why bother changing?

How did you come to this conclusion? If someone is renting it means they they can’t pay for mortgage. Otherwise they would’ve done so. He said, that he needed to make a 20% payment to even get the mortgage. Idk how much money that was for him, but where I live that would be around 130k$. Clearly not everyone has that kind of cash.

And what’s your solution? Disallow renting properties for which mortgage wasn’t posted in full?

No one is paying for his mortgage. Someone is paying for a rent. If you think this is bad, then rent should be outlawed.