YouAreMammon

The tankies are out in full force tonight.

They just don't make em like they used to!

yells at cloud

And how did you come to find out that the defendant didn't do that? That would explicitly be not included in the record.

Why wouldn't they? If the company is healthy the dividends paid will reflect macroeconomic inflationary processes.

I don't think "you don't want to beat inflation?!?!?!" is a good faith interpretation of what I'm talking about higher up in the thread - which is rampant speculation for the publicly traded companies, and behavior tantamount to rug pulls in the case of private equity.

For starters, most attorneys won't allow their clients to utter a single word to law enforcement or on the court record.

Your proposal is that the client has to have enough of a grasp on the legal strategy related to self-incrimination that they could challenge and disregard their attorneys advice, in order to save themselves from something the attorney misinterpreted.

I personally think that's way too much to ask of a defendant. You even see the accused who are lawyers themselves just hire other lawyers and promptly stfu. Counsel always decides and implements the strategy.

Thank god that isn't the bar for ineffective assistance of counsel.

A vast majority of defendants don't know all the ins and outs of law... that's why we have a profession to deal in this domain. Asking the average defendant to check their counsel's work is ridiculous.

Again, that's with the mindset that the reason to own shares is because they're an appreciating asset.

If you study the history of what investing in a company via shares has historically meant, you'll find that it's only really in the last half century that the "appreciation game" came to the forefront. Dividends yields (or equivalent) were the evaluation criteria for these investments prior to our current era.

You speak about inflation and stock as if the cause/effect relationship is crystal clear and unidirectional, I wouldn't be so confident about that.

Quite so. Like most things, balance is required. Short term vs long term profitability is underappreciated in today's CEO class.

You missed literally the whole point.

Ostensibly, those directing public companies are beholden to shareholders to create a valuable company.

Those directing private companies can do whatever they want, including extracting all the wealth for personal gain and leaving a husk.

> It's hard for me to rag on the opportunists when the opportunity is there.

Sounds good when your religion is money.

For the rest of us who don't prioritize wealth over all, this is undesirable behavior.