It sounds to me like Florida is casting a wide net, including anyone with direct connections.
Paid spokespeople who disclosed at the time they were paid spokespeople will likely not be liable, but Mark Cuban is in trouble. He promoted crypto for years it seems, rarely stating he got paid to do it or that he had a large stake in the company. It’s going to bite him.

Yes, there are VERY different rules when it comes to financial investing and being a spokesperson for financial investment opportunities. They’re dealing with the FEC.

Here is the attorney on Fox regarding the suit. https://www.foxnews.com/media/attorney-behind-lawsuit-against-ftx-tom-brady-celebrities-liable-crypto-endorsements

I wonder if having a stake in the company could have something to do with it. Also when it comes to financial investing the rules may be different having to do with responsibility. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out.

ROTFLMFAHS!!! Gotta keep an eye on the roaches or they take over.
He’s not living rent free either…and his pathological need to stay in the public spotlight is costing him everything, hundreds of millions and maybe his freedom.

Pelosi has lived in your head for a decade rent free, and no amount of MAGA terrorism will evict her!
Clinton’s been in there three decades, stomping on the floors and overflowing her toilet.
Biden moved in 6 years ago, and so did his son Hunter soon after.

Trump will be out of mine the day he’s sentenced and his anti democracy moronic insurrectionist insane clown posse disbands or goes to prison with him.

If actions are any indication, you are sadly mistaken. He’s never demonstrated even slightly above average intelligence nor any knowledge on any subject….ever. Lol. Don’t forget, according to him, he lost more money than anyone in America more than one year in a row, and went bankrupt what, 6, 7 times? His only claim to fame is inheriting hundreds of millions and doing worse financially than if he had simply put it in low yield CD’s. He’s also facing criminal charges in 4 states and federal court, and more civil cases that I can keep track of including one upcoming for restitution for raping a woman and another seeking $250 million (that he’s unlikely to win). D’oh!

I retired at 30 with a nice comfortable life and few responsibilities. WINNING!

I would ask….since he says his strongest ability is reading people, what is it about him that make SOOOOO many of his “best and brightest” turn on him and according to him become the worst dishonest liars on earth the moment they lose favor or stop benefiting from stroking his ego? His unimpeachable honesty and high level intelligence? I think not.

Now, have you grown enough spine to discuss Ashley Babbitt?

Clearly better than you, as I don’t just make up numbers or ignore losses of 1/8 the value and pretend they never happened. Also I seem to know what Elon has stated as his plans for the business better than you, I knew he plans to fire 10% across the board while you are convinced he’s going to expand.

Cherry picking?! You said down from its high this year, I went from Jan 3, it’s high this year, to yesterday’s close. Now you call that cherry-picking?
It’s not about a date , dummy, it’s about it’s high for the year, the point YOU picked. WTF is wrong with you?

If chicken was overpriced by 7 times but other meats aren’t, and then chicken dropped by 20%, it’s still a TERRIBLE buy. Same with Tesla, but chicken isn’t also priced based on how nutty Foghorn Leghorn acts, Tesla is, and Elon is acting CRAZY. I’m somewhat surprised you stick with him, Trump has totally abandoned him and now says Tesla is a terrible investment. Even if you stick it out, lots who listen to Trump are getting out. That’s going to hurt for a while. Another self inflicted wound.

Yeah, sure buddy. Just keep telling yourself that. Tesla is dropping off a cliff, unlike other car companies, and it’s all Biden’s fault (only the losses, not the gains). Tesla’s losses are self inflicted, and there’s more to come.

Growth is good, but you must ignore that it was so insanely overpriced that it really doesn’t matter, the price is not tied to any growth or income, it’s pure speculation…PE still 110. A decent PE is below 20.
Record capacity….but it’s never been close to full capacity so that’s meaningless. It’s still stymied by chip availability, battery availability, and parts availability for their battery factories so they can’t even make their new batteries their new car models require, and Tesla isn’t first in line for chips, Ford and Chevy are. If you could only produce 100 cars a month and now you made 103…that’s record production, but still failing miserably.

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/musk-says-teslas-new-car-factories-losing-billions-dollars-2022-06-22/

Edit: Not a good sign that cybertruck and the electric semi truck are now delayed indefinitely. Ford is going to beat Tesla to the pickup truck market with a truck that doesn’t look like a bad 80’s sci-fi movie prop. If major semi manufacturers do the same, and manage to solve the weight limit issue two expensive product lines will totally fail. Elon is clear, neither will be released this year, next year is a maybe at best….but as designed they aren’t competitive with diesel trucks for range or load capacity.


Yeah, sure, everybody else is hurting Tesla to hurt YOU. It’s not slumping because it’s in financial straights, can’t produce cars anywhere near full capacity (or at a profit yet?), is burning through BILLIONS every month, and has an owner that clearly doesn’t care one whit about tanking the stock with impulse moves like offering $45 billion for a company not worth $20 billion.
I don’t let politics control my investments….and mine have not lost 32% this year, you have (and you pretend it’s only 20% because you lie even to yourself).

Again, if it grows 50% (and I don’t think Tesla has btw) but is overpriced by over 10 times (it was in Jan) it needs to keep it up for 20 years with no stock increase to break even and actually be worth the price. Any stock with a PE over 100 is horrific.

You claimed down 20% this year, then blew up when I showed it’s actually down 32% and massively overpriced. Why on earth would anyone take advice from someone so dishonest with even the values? Especially someone so divorced from reality as you?

Tesla is losing subsidies, can’t produce at profitable levels,and SAID they’re downsizing by 10%.
Yes, the EV vehicle category is due to explode, but Tesla is at full capacity (as much as they’re capable, not full factory capacity) and is about to get MASSIVE competition from the big 3, with insanely more production capacity, better supply chains, and subsidies they haven’t burned through yet. Tesla can’t keep up with demand, but they’re nearly the only game in town….but not for long. Expect demand for Teslas to plummet when electric Mustangs, Corvettes, SUVs, pickup trucks, etc start rolling off the lines in big numbers later this year, EV’s that are on par with Teslas (or better) and that customers don’t have to wait a full year for delivery…there have been multiple times recently when Elon said he would stop taking orders because he can’t produce them.

We had an apple in the home by ‘80, and stock soon after. They weren’t at a PE over 100. They also were doing terribly before they gambled on the cell phone industry. Derp.

There’s a reason you think I know everything….I can read. When there’s a topic I’m ignorant about, I read about it, and don’t just look at one source. I try to get multiple different opinions, the facts, and history of any topic, then reply. You listen to admitted liars and nut jobs Alex Jones or Beck and think you know it all. Lol. Such a silly, constantly projecting little boy you are.

Really….it’s certainly something to Tesla. Yes, I want him to be held to the contract he signed. Yes, it will hurt Tesla more than the $1 billion drop in assets for NOTHING, because it’s an undeniable example of Elon’s recklessness and poor business sense. I don’t care one whit if he buys or not, I want him to follow the contract he signed. If he does buy, though, it might end Tesla. $45 billion from its coffers (for assets worth well under $20 billion) would be a death nail.

MSNBC agrees with me? News to me. I come to my own decisions, little boy. I don’t need them spoon fed to me, and I understand why I invest as I do. I made money this year, did you?
(I know, if you’re honest about being all in on Tesla, you lost massively, 1/3 of your portfolio in 6 months, and you still think you’ve got it all right, you know everything there is to know about investing, so much you spend lots of time being an unpaid salesman for Tesla, a stock that’s losing money hand over fist and is overpriced by at least 6 times according to professionals).

I’m one gullible dude?!? I AM!?! Er mer gerd, that’s some serious hard core projection (and a little tissy fit).
ROTFLMFAHS!!!

Wow.
Sounds incredibly similar the Trump family.
Nepotism to the extreme, massive borrowing, huge financial ties to Russia and China, huge corruption and theft problems at the top, completely ignoring the plight of the quickly growing poor populace, relying on questionable at best future earnings to repay massive overspending wasted on useless wasteful projects, living lavish lifestyles as the country dwindles, printing money to pay for internal projects, causing massive inflation, refusing to leave office, ….

This could be America if Trump gets a second term. Good find, Bob.

I'll take Trump over Biden any day.

America went from firing on all cylinders to being choked out financially speaking.

$6/ gal gas. Democrat policies are killing the American pocketbook.

America had a Leader, Now we have a JOKE.

"A snuff movie is a motion picture genre that depicts the actual death or murder of a person or people, without the aid of special effects, for the express purpose of distribution and entertainment or financial exploitation."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boKe4FSYhJM

So, if Republicans are pro life, why are you so pro instruments of death? Meaning guns, specifically handguns and military anti personnel rifles both designed to kill people.
Same for the death penalty, Republicans love death.
Why do Republicans support laws that allow them to murder if they “feel threatened”?
Sure sounds pro death to me.

Seems those tools of death and destruction are the number one love of Republicans.
We’ve been over how your party is the clear winner of the debauchery award, you haven’t been able to produce a single example of democrats, which would be a no brainer if your claim were correct….and having no brain, that’s exactly what you need.

Remember, republicans said the elderly would rather be killed by their irresponsibility if it meant they didn’t have to wear masks or get a shot. Another pro death platform from Republicans.

I guess you don’t recall the Republican position, “my body my choice. Keep the government out of my body.” Or are you admitting you never meant it?

That included when choosing to not follow public health recommendations meant you might be responsible for the death of hundreds or even thousands of others. Funny how that’s good enough when avoiding the tiny inconvenience of a shot (like you’re all little crybabies deathly afraid of a short needle) but not important enough for women to avoid the “inconvenience” (by which I mean the extreme mental, physical, and financial costs) of bearing and raising unwanted children, even those of child rapists and incestuous fathers/brothers/uncles.

Mr engineer, when there are two parties, sentence structure demands you use plurals….both sides have THEIR share of undesirables. An engineer should see grammar as a clearly defined structure that follows simple rules and just get it. Spelling is different, but grammar should be a no brainer….why is it so hard for you? Have you never seen it that way, or was engineering incredibly difficult for you too?

The difference being one side is all undesirables, and the level of undesirability. One side openly calls for an end to American democracy, death for their political rivals, death for anyone who disagrees with today’s talking point. One side has no party platform, no stated goals, and exists solely to stop any legislation the other side puts forth, even when it was something they want or that would benefit them. They are the same side.

We found another point of agreement.

Term limits are a must, and will never happen because our system does put the regulatory onus on those who need regulating….absolute insanity. It also lets them set their own salaries, ethics, and benefits.

Divestment is another must. Perhaps a bigger must. Total divestment across the board. Not just blind trusts that aren’t really blind, and absolutely not what we have now…the “honor” system run by the honorless. Allowing legislatures to write horrific laws because they can personally financially benefit is a recipe for disaster. That should (but never will) change.

Campaign finance is a third must. Corporations should have the same donation limits individuals have, which should be more like $100 each so every person can afford to have a voice, and we should return to an equal time on broadcast tv for free situation and deny the media as a political platform to give candidates a boost….no more Fox News interviews indistinguishable from campaign commercials, no more media smear campaigns, with severe penalties for violations, like $10 mil the first time, $25 mil the second, loss of fcc license the third. Another non starter….but needed badly.

PACs should be outlawed, or regulated into obscurity.

Some reasons often brought up in opposition to term limits can be traced back to Maddison who wrote "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they be to fall into the snares that may be laid before them,"

I think we have proven at this point the cons of self serving representatives legislating for personal gains outweigh the benefits of professional legislators, especially seeing as we have the internet and huge staffs to ostensibly level the playing field of knowledge.

One fix would be the creation of an ethics branch, completely non partisan, not self regulatory, with rules against former candidates (winners and losers) and lobbyists too from serving and strict rules about how they operate, and bans from running for office or being a lobbyist afterwards so it doesn’t become a campaign platform or tool for industry. Maybe even ban close family members from the same. Won’t happen, only the best people intentionally limit their powers, and they are few and far between in Congress….all but absent on your side.

Oops, did I say hundreds of millions…my mistake, so sorry…. Recent reports of Saudi Arabia agreeing to invest a billion dollars in Trump Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin's firm despite being a horrible, very bad, no good investment according to all of the prince’s financial advisors, and new reporting from the New York Times that Donald Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner secured a two billion dollar investment from the Saudis despite lacking the qualifications to handle such an investment and his firm being worse than Mnuchin’s by every measure and a horrific investment in terrible real estate at insanely overvalued prices….now we know why Trump took their side over Quatar, and why he (and he bragged about this) saved the royal prince from any repercussions for ordering the dismembering while alive of an American citizen and member of the press in an outrageous act of brutality and murder.

Just one more case of Trump before (read “instead of”) country.

What was that about Hunter?! Some silly baseless rumors made up in
Giuliani’s pickled brain you want investigated? Sure, right after we get the criminals we have actual verified proof on, not just baseless partisan accusations.

That's hard to prove. And actually the end result would be the opposite. His recent tour's sold out. He's (rightfully) benefitting from the incident financially because he took the high road. Sue for the physical damage, sure, but whatever the amount a judge & jury would award him, it'd be just a drop in a bucket from Smith. Probably end up settled out of court. But I would most definitely take all the money from Smith. Then give it to charity to rub it in.

Bob, please read this carefully. I know we fuck around a lot here, but I 100% honestly don't want to see you get hurt financially.

Obviously, if you believe in TSLA, I understand you putting your money where your mouth is (full disclosure: I'm holding POTX and CURLF, so I'm on the same page with what I'm saying on this) but PLEASE don't bet money you don't have on TSLA.

“At 10-times revenues, to give you a 10-year payback (P/E 10, my note), I must pay you 100% of revenues for 10-straight years in dividends. That assumes I can get that by my shareholders. It also assumes I have zero cost of goods sold, which is very hard for a computer company.

That assumes zero expenses, which is hard with 39,000 employees. That assumes I pay no taxes, which is very hard. And that expects you pay no taxes on your dividends, which is kind of illegal. And that assumes with zero R&D for the next 10-years, I can maintain the current revenue run rate.

Now, having done that, would any of you like to buy my stock at $64? Do you realize how ridiculous those underlying assumptions are? You don’t need any transparency. You don’t need any footnotes.

What were you thinking?”

-- Scott McNealy was the CEO of Sun Microsystems
2002

At the peak of the Dot-Com, roughly 30 stocks in the NASDAQ 100 traded above 10 P/E. Today ALL stocks in the DAQ do: the average P/E is ~25.5.

TSLA is at a P/E of 175.

There is no American economy. There hasn't been since since October 3 of 2008. Things got catastrophically worse on September 17th of 2019 when the repo market came within hours of completely locking up in a catastrophe that would have made AIG look like a rounding error. The Fed was forced to firehose astronomical amounts of money into the system to keep this from happening and this was before Covid.

In Jan of 2021, there was $2.6 TRILLION in Zombie Debt out there. That's $2.6 TRILLION on the verge of default at 2021 interest rates. The Fed is now in a horrific position: raise rates and watch massive defaults explode like financial nukes, or keep rates steady and watch inflation implode the economy.

People don't understand how bad this is and how much worse it can get. If the Fed has to raise rates by 500 BP -- and Christ fucking help us if they do -- the first order defaults will be the worst in Capitalist history and the second and third order effects could very well be the nightmare scenario we came within 36 hours of in 2008.

Save your money, Bob. Cash is king. And fuck BTC.

Yeah, the crutch of it for me is the UBI moniker.

What you describe at the end of your post, minimum income, is really just a rewording of the existing social security and welfare systems across the western world. I know they look different in each, but here in Canada what you describe is more or less our already existing system's design goal. Welfare money exists for those that straight up can not work, and an employment insurance system exists to protect those inbetween jobs, meanwhile other multiple programs are aimed at distributing financial assistance to the lower income groups.

Despite all of that already existing, UBI is still being heralded up here in trials as well as a replacement. The problem being that for the needy the UBI pitches are generally a step backwards.

Eg. $500/month is the UBI pitch, and they say it'll be great because everyone gets it no matter what so it's simple and fair and nobody is left behind. The trouble though is that the reality is the truly in need people were already benefitting more than the $500/month under the existing systems, and the cost was much less because it was targeted.

I here UBI and get very worried about folks just selling snake oil 'solutions' that in the end are just a demand to adopt their own particular flavor of wealth redistribution.

I'm gonna have to be that guy. $500 a month for a family of four is $2k, which is a very good chunk of money to drop in your lap.

That works out the same as it they were on a single income, working 40 hour weeks at $10/hr, so almost equivalent to a full time job. No doubt that's gonna be a big deal and noticeable financial improvement to the recipient(s).

As always with UBI schemes, the devil is in how you pay for it. If it's truly universal, paying $500/month to ~330 million Americans would cost $1.98 Trillion dollars, meanwhile the current entire US gov budget for 2022 is estimated at $1.2 Trillion.

So, to implement $500/month universally in America would require not only increasing overall tax revenues by almost 50% it would also require the cancellation of 100% of every single other expenditure. That not includes military spending going to zero, but even cancelling the jobs of everyone that collects taxes and would presumably have been responsible for distributing the $500 checks.

If the 'fix' is to just tax the pants off anyone earning more than the $500/month, or limiting who we give it to, then it ceases to be a UBI scheme, and is instead just a mundane modification of the existing social security scheme by shuffling more money back and forth between different folks.