Big corps always wave away debt if they can pay it off via revenue, or future promises of revenue, or … reasons. Why is it different here? Honest question. They have more cash on hand, it seems, than their current debt, so could pay that at any time. Why is it a true liability?
It’s not different here, debt is debt, you might say “despite the debt it’s a good stock” or something like that but you don’t pretend $4B in debt just doesn’t exist.
“financial acumen of a stoned teenager”. Can you just not read either, or do you not understand this is that thing you learn about in 3rd grade called a “comparison” and not literally calling you a stoned teenager? I’m getting concerned here.
You also clearly have no idea what an “ad hominim [sic]” is either.
make no pretense to be some financial guru.
You certainly considered yourself well-informed enough to say the person BBC News quoted had no fucking idea what they were talking about without doing the most basic research first.
It’s 2026; my patience for the intellectually lazy has been running on fumes for a decade and is on its deathbed. If you want to police your tone around these braindead slobs, that’s your business.
For my part, I’m fine with treating these Dunning–Kruger “oh yeah, all those experts are wrong” morons who know fuck-all about even the basics of what they’re saying like they deserve to be treated: as an object of ridicule.
Uhm actually ddg is just bing with marketing,
does not block microsoft trackers, giving them a monopoly on that data. Use Searxng if you actually want no trackers.
And like. The economy isn’t real. You need to stop getting so worked up about these semantics. Debt isn’t a real thing, money is not a real thing, its all just psychotic monkey scribbles. Made up shit.
The only type of debt that does exist, is the one humanity has towards earth. A debt that exits in the labour, resources and energy that it will take to balance our planet out so it can continue to co-exist with us.
Actually both profit and debt are just global loss.
Sell a forest to let a company turn it in firewood for sale but it doesn’t sell so the company make a loss.
In the end nothing of value got created but the temporary heat of the logs that got sold. For the profit that is now used for a new casino or famous art, the world has lost a forest, a local contributor of healthy air.
All life that consumes life generates loss.
To live is to destroy. That is inevitable.
Maybe we should aim to embrace that fact rather than hide from it. Hold the knowledge in 2 hands.
Because the problem is not that to live we must destroy, its the excessive disrespectful way we go on with it noting the profits and value without the damage we have done to obtain those numbers.
Maybe public display of loss and debt, proof of how little cost there is for the creation of a measurable value could be the new winning.
Once we start counting loss and not profit or economy will make more sense, as money to first have and then buy with becomes obsolete in contrast to measuring how much damage you have done compared to your peers. Socially, winning means being able to brag with how much you can do with so little.
No more bloating numbers for the appearance of success, but actual success in showing how creative and efficient we can be to get the most life out of our species.
Big corps always wave away debt if they can pay it off via revenue, or future promises of revenue, or … reasons. Why is it different here? Honest question. They have more cash on hand, it seems, than their current debt, so could pay that at any time. Why is it a true liability?
It’s not different here, debt is debt, you might say “despite the debt it’s a good stock” or something like that but you don’t pretend $4B in debt just doesn’t exist.
“financial acumen of a stoned teenager”. Can you just not read either, or do you not understand this is that thing you learn about in 3rd grade called a “comparison” and not literally calling you a stoned teenager? I’m getting concerned here.
You also clearly have no idea what an “ad hominim [sic]” is either.
You certainly considered yourself well-informed enough to say the person BBC News quoted had no fucking idea what they were talking about without doing the most basic research first.
Very hinged response.
It’s 2026; my patience for the intellectually lazy has been running on fumes for a decade and is on its deathbed. If you want to police your tone around these braindead slobs, that’s your business.
For my part, I’m fine with treating these Dunning–Kruger “oh yeah, all those experts are wrong” morons who know fuck-all about even the basics of what they’re saying like they deserve to be treated: as an object of ridicule.
Just too much work for them, I guess.
Uhm actually ddg is just bing with marketing, does not block microsoft trackers, giving them a monopoly on that data. Use Searxng if you actually want no trackers.
And like. The economy isn’t real. You need to stop getting so worked up about these semantics. Debt isn’t a real thing, money is not a real thing, its all just psychotic monkey scribbles. Made up shit.
The only type of debt that does exist, is the one humanity has towards earth. A debt that exits in the labour, resources and energy that it will take to balance our planet out so it can continue to co-exist with us.
Sorry, just trolling by acting “stoned teenager”
Untrue. We all owe a debt… to ourselves, for always being there. But… does that mean we’re the Earth? This is so crazy.
Actually both profit and debt are just global loss.
Sell a forest to let a company turn it in firewood for sale but it doesn’t sell so the company make a loss.
In the end nothing of value got created but the temporary heat of the logs that got sold. For the profit that is now used for a new casino or famous art, the world has lost a forest, a local contributor of healthy air.
All life that consumes life generates loss. To live is to destroy. That is inevitable.
Maybe we should aim to embrace that fact rather than hide from it. Hold the knowledge in 2 hands.
Because the problem is not that to live we must destroy, its the excessive disrespectful way we go on with it noting the profits and value without the damage we have done to obtain those numbers.
Maybe public display of loss and debt, proof of how little cost there is for the creation of a measurable value could be the new winning.
Once we start counting loss and not profit or economy will make more sense, as money to first have and then buy with becomes obsolete in contrast to measuring how much damage you have done compared to your peers. Socially, winning means being able to brag with how much you can do with so little.
No more bloating numbers for the appearance of success, but actual success in showing how creative and efficient we can be to get the most life out of our species.
(This is a wip btw)