> Those who do not sell, get their reward in the proportion of their ownership of the company going up.
This is incorrect. If the company buys back say $100m worth of its stock, it's true that the individual shares remaining represent a larger fraction of the company, BUT the company itself is worth $100m less after the transaction (because it has spent that $100m on purchase of something that can't be added to the balance sheet - basically incinerated that money from company's point of view, similarly to how paying out dividends is "destroying" money). These two factors cancel out perfectly, and the book value per share remains unchanged.
You're right, I missed that! But, essentially this makes the case for buybacks even worse - paying over book value for shares means that the company is reducing its book value via the buyback. So, it's worth less after the buyback.
Yes. Book value is just one metric for value, but let's keep using it. I could also say that paying less than book value is increasing the book value, so the company is worth more after the buyback. As you say, it depends on the purchase price.
The reality seems to be that only the genius founder is allowed to do any unorthodox moves as the CEO. Once he's out, the board selects a CEO that will basically continue business as usual without rocking the boat. The new CEO essentially won't have a mandate to use any controversial or original approach.
Back when sugar first appeared in Europe, it was only affordable to upper-middle classes and above. And yet, I haven't heard about any addicts robbing people so that they can afford sugar. I don't think it's holding quite the same grasp on people as some narcotics do.
For me, the better graphics, mocap etc., the stroger the uncanny valley feeling - i.e. I stop perceiving it as a video game, but instead see it as an incredibly bad movie.
Not to mention making your device obsolete. My 12 year old laptop already can't decode some of the videos on Pirate Bay in real time, because the codec is too demanding.
Of course, we’re living in the future where Moore’s law has seriously slowed down. But, as a product of the 90’s this is a kind wild thing to see. I can’t imagine in the year 2000 being disappointed content wouldn’t play on a 386 or something.
But, I mean, your expectation is not that unreasonable, computers were quite good by 2013. It is just an eye-opening framing.
Hardware doesn't just pop out of the thin air. Data centers need to be built, GPUs need to be produced, and storage, and other compute, and networking, etc etc. All this needs people. Shouldn't there be boom in construction? Hardware manufacturing?
I've read that the US have almost a million skilled worker shortage in construction (especially commercial and industrial that demand more specific skills), and that since a quarter of the demand is for federal/state/county projects that cannot decide as fast as a company to accept rising prices, it also mean the already decaying public infrastructure risk to never be repaired in time (constructing new stuff is more expensive than repairing expensive stuff. More GDP growth i guess, but :/)
And you have a boom in hardware manufacturing, in Asia mostly, but even in europe you see new companies popping up (before Covid we had like 2 comapnies that could print custom pcbs, both german, now i found like 5 in France (2 of them are the german who expended but still))
