SCOTUS is the fly in the ointment with Constitutional Amendments.
The Bill of Rights were intended to restrict government action. When there were exceptions, the wording of the Bill of Rights made them clear. The Bill of Rights were intended to be absolute things the government never could do.
That is not how they work today. SCOTUS has changed the Bill of Rights to require citizens to affirmatively assert them and has ruled that citizens can consent to permit the government to engage in activities the Bill of Rights made clear were prohibited.
As a result, our lives are very different than what was originally intended. Today when the police pull you over for a traffic stop, the police engage in conversations they learn in police training - conversations that are explicitly intended to lead to the driver waiving his constitution rights - rights that were intended to be absolute unaidable automatic restrictions upon government conduct.
That's rich in view of the fact you are the one who is expressing aggressive ignorance. The truth is:
1. An ETF tracking a specific passive index is legally obligated to purchase the shares of a new company added to that index with zero discretion allowed no matter how irrational the pricing might be.
2. Contrary to what you've been spewing about ETFs adding the stock gradually over time, the truth is all ETFs make their full purchases BEFORE the company is actually even added.
Doubt it? Do a quick google search: How soon do ETF's tracking a specific index buy the stock in a new company added to the index they track?
So stop being a jerk with your personal attacks - especially when you don't know what you are talking about.
It would be helpful if you could provide a source supporting your thought that an ETF following a particular index would buy stock in the new company over what you describe as an extended period of time - as opposed to within a short few days.
I spent quite a lot of time before the SpaceX IPO learning how a change in Nasdaq 100 rules regarding adding a new company to its index, would impact ETFs whose prospectus tied them to the Nasdaq 100. The information I reviewed indicated the ETFs would add all of the new purchases immediately (within a matter of days following the addition of a new company to the tracking index).
Mutual funds and ETFs set forth a prospectus that is a legal document binding them by law to comply with how they operate. While an etf is free to create its own index, that is not the way the market works. Vanguard, Fidelity, iShares, BlackRock and the other major players, state in their prospectus what index the ETF will follow - such as the CRSP US Total Market Index to use one example from Vanguard's VTI etf.
That means Vanguard VTI tracks the stocks that are contained in the CRSP US Total Market Index. So, if CRSP adds a new holding to its US Total Market Index, Vanguard VTI is legally bound by its prospectus to add that stock to VTI and to do so in a manner that assures VTI returns track the CRSP US Total Market Index returns as closely as possible (meaning they own every stock CRSP does and in the same proportion that CRSP does).
This is not just a 'good idea'. It is legally binding upon Vanguard by virtue of the VTI prospectus.
I have to say it is incredibly annoying that the wealthiest man in the world is so thin skinned that every post on Hacker News that talks about him in ways he doesn't like gets flagged.
Of course Musk isn't doing it himself. He already bought Twitter so he could control what is said about him. And, as the wealthiest man in the world, he'd be stupid if he hasn't hired tens of thousands of people to monitor posts about him or his concerns and to downvote them (or whatever he wants). The cost to him for doing that would be similar to us spending ten cents.
If Musk's pressure had succeeded and the S&P and CRSP had changed their index rules, then the major indexes would have been legally obligated to buy SpaceX at the IPO price - or presumably higher because their own mass purchases would have driven the price even higher.
That was Musk's plan. It failed because he couldn't get the major indexes to cow tail to his pressure and demands.
Edit: My reference to the SEC is that they are charged with investigating market manipulation. And Musk was involved in the biggest attempt at market manipulation probably in history - trying to pressure private indexes used by almost every ETF in the world (S&P and CRSP) to change their rules which would have legally obligated those ETFs to purchase SpaceX within 15 days.
However, the SEC cannot investigate it because no laws would be violated despite the fact it would have been an incredible market manipulation.
In fact, the change in rules by Nasdaq 100 is a huge market manipulation that has taken place exactly as I describe - it's simply not as catastrophically large as it would have been had all the major indexes succumbed to Musk's demands.
If the internet is so dangerous that it requires every adult to obtain a government ID to get online, then yes, a 10 year old (or 17 yo if that's the age you want to use) is going to have to wait just like he/she has to wait to drive a car or buy liquor or cigarettes or pot.
Don't blame me. Blame the people pushing for a government ID that YOU must have before you can order your pizza.
1. Eliminate all the false flag attempts by governments and their supporters to use "danger to children" to require government ID for every adult to get online.
2. If the internet is so dangerous as to require ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do. Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners.
Musk tried mightily to get S&P to change their 12 month rule to 15 days but they refused. Nasdaq, however, caved to Musk and agreed to change the rules of its Index - from a 12 months wait to 15 days - in exchange for Musk agreeing to list SpaceX on Nasdaq's exchange.
There are ETFs that were issued tied to the Nasdaq 100 which are therefore legally bound to buy SpaceX. But the biggest immorality is the SEC allowing Musk's attempt to manipulate the market by:
1. Setting an IPO price for SpaceX (which absorbed xAi and its money guzzling losses) at unsustainable, incredibly inflated prices; and then
2. Putting incredible pressure on SP500 and other index makers to change their rules to force the purchase of SpaceX at those sky high prices (in an IPO, company gets to set the IPO price).
It's legal. At least in the eyes of the SEC which, of course, is an institution that is controlled by the wealthiest who control the markets, so of course it's legal.
But it is outrageous market manipulation that is fraudulent in its intent to enrich the wealthiest man on earth at the expense of ever wage earner putting her money into Index Funds.
Thank goodness the S&P and CRSP refused to change their rules. Otherwise the shifting of risk from Musk onto the shoulders of every working American would have been complete.
There is no need for id. IMO granting children access to the internet is no different than handing a child a loaded gun with no safety. Both should be treated the same way. Make it illegal for parents or any adult to:
- purchase an internet capable device for anyone under the age of 18 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate to allow unfettered access without any ID)
- allow anyone under the age of 18 (or ##) to operate a device connected to the internet
That removes the government's attempted false flag operations to use "children's access to the internet" as the excuse to obtain the right to monitor every second of your online activity for the rest of your life.
And simultaneously likely saves our children's brains.
Edit: Hyperbole is an easy accusation. But the concept is straight forward:
If the internet is so dangerous as to require everyone to have government issued ID to get online, then change the law preventing smartphones and other internet mobile devices to be possessed by children. That's easy to do.
Put the burden on parents where it belongs to monitor their children in their own homes just as they do as gun owners (required to use gun lockers etc). If you are ok with your 10 year old being in his/her room online without you monitoring, then imo that's probably child abuser, but hey, go for it.
In over simplified terms, the theory of insurance is to pay out in claims the same amount collected in premiums and keep the investment returns generated during the time period between collecting premiums and paying out claims (the "float").
State regulators are charged with financial oversight of insurers to prevent insurers from gambling with the float. That is what this article is about: insurers hiring private rating agencies to issue certificates to regulators certifying A+ ratings of the assets where the insurer has invested the float. The risk is the inability to validate the private ratings.
Another 'scam' has been taking place over the past year or so in the annuity market known as the "Bermuda Triangle" strategy. Some life insurers have been building market share by offering annuities at very competitive rates and then transferring the risk to a subsidiary located in Bermuda which had more lax reserving oversight, thereby significantly increasing risk of inability to make the full annuity payments.
The push and pull between regulatory oversight and risk taking has always been a financial problem with the risk ultimately being absorbed by the taxpayer - as was true with AIG when they specifically designed a new product in a manner to escape regulatory oversight - credit default swaps - which were then used to enable sellers to obtain A+ ratings from the rating companies for packaged baskets of low quality mortgage loans - thereby eventually leading to the 2008 collapse.
What I haven't seen mentioned is the identification of "providers". The days of your doctor being the 'provider' are long gone. Providers are now large corporations and, interestingly, the largest "providers" are health insurance companies.
Point 4 of an article[1] about health delivery is quoted below:
>>Perhaps the most underappreciated transformation of the past 40 years is the corporate consolidation and financialization of medicine. Care delivery—once local and community-based—is now dominated by corporations.
>>Vertical consolidation is now a defining feature of American health care. UnitedHealth Group isn’t just the largest insurer; it’s also the largest employer of physicians and the largest operator of home health and hospice agencies. CVS Health, the largest pharmacy chain, also owns the biggest pharmacy benefit managers—and now giant insurer, Aetna. McKesson, a pharmaceutical distributor, now operates the nation’s largest chain of oncology practices and is rapidly expanding into other specialties. These combinations raise all the conflicts of interest you’d expect—higher prices, business steered away from independent providers and pharmacies, gaming regulations, and more.
The ongoing money being spent on advancing helmet design for American football is a ruse. Yes, helmets are important to protect skull fractures. But that is not why so much money is being put into helmet design. I have been a football fan for over 60 years and I cannot remember ever hearing about someone suffering a skull fracture while playing football.
There is only one issue scaring the NFL and others making money from football. CTE. And helmets have absolutely zero to do with CTE. CTE is caused by a free floating brain moving at speed hitting the inside of the skull when the body comes to a sudden stop or change of direction. Repetitively. For years. No head contact is involved. Diagnosed concussions have zero relationship to CTE.
The NFL cannot survive with that truth being widely accepted. The NFL's survival is dependent upon spinning a narrative that there are steps that can be - and are being - taken that will make American football safe. Notice they never say "safe from CTE" - because that would be a legally fraudulent falsehood.
Posting helmet design stories just perpetuates the NFL's false narrative.
I have 7 grandchildren with the oldest being 10. My daughters are very strict about not providing their kids with devices that have internet access. The only one of the 7 who has a phone has a flip phone with no internet access. There simply is no reason to provide young children with access to the internet.
I got my first computer when I was 26. It had taken 30 days to arrive and when I got word I could pick it up, I left work an hour early, rushed to the computer store, and was into my apartment by 4:30 or so. I unpacked and set things up on my dining room table. The next thing I knew it was 4:30am.
Things have been pretty much the same in the 48 years since.