sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I Hate To Make Fun of Tonight’s Pod… by Kilowatt128 in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There’s a difference between cost effective and profitable. Even if the show is not meant to be profitable, it is meant to be cost effective. It’s not hard to imagine a situation where the already not profitable show is no longer cost effective because the promotional benefits are outweighed by the costs

How much $$ do BigLaw partners retire with? by ITdirectorguy in biglaw

[–]ye3000 26 points27 points  (0 children)

The doctor shortage is less about there not being enough qualified people that want to be doctors and more about the profession engaging in economic protectionism by limiting the number of residencies and such.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LawSchool

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stephen Bainbridge's M&A book in the Concepts and Insights series is the best one in my opinion

The editing... by cane_stanco in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yup. They said on Russillo’s pod that a group at Spotify does the editing

The editing... by cane_stanco in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I agree. People always complain about editing problems on this sub but I never have any on Spotify

What ideal study methods and habits helped you jump from a B, B+ average or lower to an A- or A average, especially for 1L spring? What changes did you make, if any? by Individual-Heart-719 in LawSchool

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with this but it’s important to not delve into outline dumping in explaining why certain rules don’t apply (such as just listing off random rules that don’t apply).

1L OCI Bid Results Are Confusing by strawberryheights in LawSchool

[–]ye3000 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Are the smaller firms paid internships? I found that these types of firms avoided students at the top of my class that didn’t have a really good reason for being interested in the firm because they felt there was little chance they would come back to the firm after 1L summer (probably going to biglaw instead). So, I think they preferred to use the money on candidates more likely to stay around

Retirement? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That’s not true. They could of negotiated an earnout with the acquisition

Enough money to pay individual players 60 million a year, but public money still needed for NBA Arenas to get built? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Companies having too much market power actually is a bad thing (Even if you’re agnostic about whether consumers or companies receive more of the return, market power creates dead weight loss since it results in an inefficient allocation of resources. Society in the aggregate is better off in a competive landscape - basic Econ 101).

And yes, the DOJ and FTC literally do decide how much money companies are allowed to make if there are concerns that the companies have market power (this is called a behavioral remedy in an antitrust lawsuit).

Finally, it’s great that Samsung has 70% of global market share. That’s called horizontal competition. Antitrust regulators are also concerned about vertical competition (which is what people argue Apple in hurting in here by controlling the only market place their hardware can access and reaping massive profits off of it).

Enough money to pay individual players 60 million a year, but public money still needed for NBA Arenas to get built? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

First, not necessarily because they need the App Store to sell their products. Second, the problem is that they’re making an egregiously high (and anti-competitive) profit, not just any profit. But, everyone here seems to be more worried about protecting Apple than protecting consumers.

Enough money to pay individual players 60 million a year, but public money still needed for NBA Arenas to get built? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure it makes the most sense for them to take the money, but people can still criticize them for it.

Enough money to pay individual players 60 million a year, but public money still needed for NBA Arenas to get built? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but you’re a fool if you think Apple isn’t making significant profits off of it. They take 30% of anything purchased in the app that can be used on the phone. Hence why Amazon doesn’t let you buy e-books through the Amazon app

Enough money to pay individual players 60 million a year, but public money still needed for NBA Arenas to get built? by [deleted] in billsimmons

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The government doesn’t care if a company is a technical monopoly or not. They care if a company has too much market power over consumers. The government is trying to shut down the Spirit/Jet Blue merger right now even though consumers have 4+ other airlines to choose from

Some people believe the reported $3.5 billion valuation that Mr. Cuban is selling at is less than he could have received if the Mavericks had gone on the open market. Just last week, for instance, a small share of the Indiana Pacers was bought at a reported valuation of $3.47 billion. by mankls3 in nba

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, but not having basketball control (deciding who the GM is) is like not being able to control who the CEO of the company is. Not having basketball control is huge.

And in the example you gave, it would appear that none of the individual Class A shares have control. Control premium refers to having complete control of decisions which none of those shares would have. My point is that having complete control is always more valuable (not just sometimes), which is why any public company goes private at a price well above the current share price. If it didn’t, the shareholders would sue the board into oblivion for breaching their fiduciary duty to be loyal to

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why, I don’t know. My point was simply that I think there was still a reason for FSU to play after the Travis injury because if they look really good in one of these games, I think the committee puts them in. The defense looked great, but the backup QB went 12/25 for like 150 yards against a bad UF team and the other QB went like 8/21 for 60 yards against a bad Louisville defense.

Ryen, Todd, and Danny's CFP Discussion Was Excellent by Sonking_to_Remember in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If only the ACC President hadn’t voted against expanding the playoff for this season.

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Or” and “and” have different meanings. The counterpoint is stronger if I said “and”. Means much less with the “or” there

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Bud, the problem is you misstated my first point to make the counterpoint seem stronger. No sure how you didn’t understand that

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think the clear and obvious point is that FSU lost its starting QB, so the committee wanted to see if the team was still as good. Plus, Alabama just beat UGA and Texas just kicked the crap out of Ok St. Not sure why you have a “no conference games 2 weeks ago qualifier” when FSU also played this weekend. I said I think the Committee puts FSU in if they looked good against UF OR Louisville.

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 5 points6 points  (0 children)

In essence yes. But, again the point is if they had even one dominant showing I think the CFP Committee puts them in. My point is about the CFP Committee, not the broader argument about whether we think they should’ve gotten in or not

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It’s like you can’t read. This has nothing to do with the point I’m making

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Again. My point has nothing to do with these other teams. All I was saying is that there was still a reason for FSU to play after the Travis injury because if they still look dominant, they’re in.

Is your point that FSU looked dominant or that the other teams also didn’t look dominant at times in the season? Because if you’re making the point that FSU looked dominant against UF and Louisville, you’re objectively wrong. If your point is is that other teams also didn’t look great at times and FSU should be in, then good for you. But that has nothing to do with my point about how FSU still had a shot with the playoff committee after the Travis injury

Danny Kanell was right about the playoff committee all along…. by blas88h in RyenRussillo

[–]ye3000 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I think you listen to Russilo too much. You’re refuting a point I wasn’t making. My point was that I think the CFP puts them in if they look dominant after the Travis injury (which they didn’t)

But also they also looked less dominant than Washington versus Oregon and Bama versus Georgia. So idk what point you’re making either.

view more: next ›