"If your human rights were decided by the government / politicians, they could simply change their mind and remove those rights. "
They can. So can dictators and military coups. All it takes is enough power. This is the way of the world.

"our right to live does not come from a politician. "
I see where the problem is. You have completely missed my point.
You are free to invent whatever rights you want. Even convince others to agree or find those that already do. But they are your opinion.
They are thoughts. Until they are backed with a social construct or power structure they are not 'rights'. No in any practical sense.

"Which doesn't even require going into the question of where the hell would these politicians get the right to decide what your rights are?"
They are supposed to be representatives of the people.
Nothing is perfect.
The Bill of Rights and US Constitution were created by politicians.

You seem to be alluding to some utopian formation of enforeceable rights that does not actually exist...

Not relevent and I would argue mistaken.

The idea that we have 'rights' at all is an artificial legal construct.

For example, in my country we have a 'bill of rights'. But our government can pass laws that breech this with a simple majority.
The Human Rights Commission will release a report on how it breeches them, and then they can choose to ignore it.

To argue that people have 'natural' rights is a subjective argument. Everyone has different ideas on what rights are.
Unless enshrined in some sort of constructed legal/social framework they are meaningless opinion at best.

Thus it is a meaningless argument.

What we need is a zombie horde to mobilise into a herd! ;)

A little simplistic...

What they really want is a clear, consistent solution to how to avoid these regulations, specifically created to cover this sort of financial product.
Subtle, but very important difference.

They are moaning because they thought they would get away with it, but failed.

In other words:

Wahhh! it should be clearer how to avoid regulations based on technicalities ...wah!

Totally agree.

There are people with hypertension that need to reduce salt due to a failing in their plumbing.

Everyone else? Nope.

x1000.
I have zombie fingers. Typing on a screen is a nightmare.

Best phone I ever had had a magnetic flip out keyboard that was part of the backing.

It was awesome.

Then EVERYONE copied apple...

Fuck apple.

So nothing of value was lost?

Meh...

They have lost their way. No relevent anymore and likely never will be again thanks to dysfunctional management.

"Russia Blocks Facebook and Twitter "

"Soon millions of ordinary Russians will find themselves cut off from reliable information"

I don't understand what these two statements have to do with each other?

Thanks for that final summary of your intellectual ability.

I think no more need be said.

It depends on the country and the laws. I am not from the US.

In my country the tax is withheld by the company from the dividend payment.

And it was a single example of why profit is not always the most important thing. It example still holds if you can run it in reverse.

So in other words your post is tangential and pointless.

The fact that you do not realize why that statement is irrelevant to the point I made tells me all I need to know. You are here with a bone to pick about the single topic in this field you understand and are immune to all other information. I get it now.

Discussion ended.

Ok. You win. I give up. Feel free to miss the point entirely. This is a complete and utter waste of my time.

I took pains to describe in my previous post this was NOT A THEORY but an insight into WHAT ACTUALLY GOES ON for most investors evaluating ANY stock. Whether YOU or I think Musk deserves it or not is entirely irrelevant to the discussion - the stock price will dictate that.

Holy Christ...beating your head against a brick wall really hurts...

Also...if you are an investor and think that "faith" (FFS!) is required in an investment decision then you are doing it wrong!

Then your evidence is crap.

It is more complicated than that.

Accumulating debt for expansion can increase the value of the company and thus the stock price. (buy new factory for new sales which increases sales by more than total cost of loan)

It can also be neutral. (buy plant with debt that roughly equates to value added or pay back a loan)

It can also be a disaster. (invest heavily in something that does not work out)

Decisions can be good and bad.

Not sure how to make this more obvious or simpler so I will not try further. Feel free to use your own advice for your own investments however.

Its not theory. Its what actually happens and how it actually works in practice.

There is theory, maths and evidence backing it also.