If you're a value investor then you believe that the actual value of a company depends on its current and future earnings and the market price will tend towards the actual value in the long run.
But naturally there are other factors that also influence the market price. In fact, the whole point of value investing is to find stocks that are "underpriced". For various reasons, they are currently priced at a discount to their actual value. Those are the stocks you should buy, and you should expect their price to increase.
Conversely, for various reasons some stocks are "overpriced", like Tesla. You should not buy those, because you expect their price to decrease in the long run.
A corollary is that value investors expect seemingly irrational price movements like we see with Tesla. If share prices perfectly reflected fundamentals, then it would be impossible to find a "good deal".
Value investors don't invest in Tesla, so you should not expect its share price to reflect fundamentals.
But they do invest in stocks like Coca Cola and American Express, so you should expect the share prices of those companies to better reflect fundamentals.
No, you base company value on its current and future earnings.
All that government influence is useless if people stop buying your products. And it turns out lots of people don't want to buy products associated with Musk.
It's bad because downward trends are bad, especially when the economy is growing.
Look at it this way: suppose you have a job with a decent salary. Your supervisor calls you in and says, "Well, looks like we're going to cut your pay next year". You ask, "Is the company in trouble? Is everyone getting a pay cut?" And they answer, "No, the company is growing. Most people are getting raises. Not you, though."
I am very suspicious about this claim. Firing thousands of air traffic controllers in a few days is actually quite difficult, especially for someone as incompetent as Trump. Yet another benefit of union membership!
Unlike alchemy and dowsing, psychology can make predictions that have been experimentally verified. To me, that means it is a science.
For example, suppose 100 people were asked whether they prefer to win $50 guaranteed, or a 50% chance of winning $100 and a 50% chance of winning nothing. Let X be the percentage who prefer the first option.
Now suppose they were asked whether they prefer to lose $50 guaranteed, or a 50% chance of losing $100 and a 50% chance of losing nothing. Let Y be the percentage who prefer the first option.
Psychology predicts that X will generally be greater than Y, and this has been verified experimentally. No other branch of science can make such a prediction.
Doctors has always referred to university teachers, hence "doctrine".
But medical practitioners were once simply known as "physicians", not "doctors". Eventually they wanted the same respect as doctors. So they gave up their system of apprenticeship and founded schools of medicine within universities, thus becoming university teachers aka doctors.
However it is incorrect to say that all doctors practice medicine. In fact, surgeons in the UK do not call themselves "doctor". Why? Because those early schools of medicine did not teach surgery, so surgeons were not considered doctors.
China and Vietnam have large private sectors with plenty of companies that attract foreign investment.
Venezuela does not. It had less than $1b in foreign direct investment in 2023. By comparison, Costa Rica had over $4b despite a smaller GDP and far smaller population than Venezuela.
They removed the delegates of New Hampshire, because New Hampshire didn't follow the rules. New Hampshire thought it was entitled to vote first even though it was clearly another state's turn to vote first.
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge David Ebel declined to adopt that "draconian" reading of Burdick, saying the statement was an aside, or dicta, in the court's overall holding on the legal effect of someone's unaccepted pardon.
Ebel said no court since had ever held that accepting a pardon was akin to confessing guilt and that the ruling instead simply meant that accepting one "only makes the pardonee look guilty by implying or imputing that he needs the pardon."
Furthermore, "actual innocence" is among the criteria used to determine who should be pardoned.
Sure, the president could do exactly that if he wanted to. For example, Hunter Biden was pardoned for anything he did between 2014 and today.
Of course pardons are always retroactive, so Hunter does not get a free crime spree after his pardon.
And presidential pardons only apply to federal prosecution. Murder is a state crime, so it is not covered by a presidental pardon.
But if Hunter lied on his IRS forms in 2018 or committed mail fraud in 2022 or hacked a federal database last week, then yeah he officially got away with it.
A pardon is issued to prevent any future punishment. It does not have to give any reasons and it does not have to acknowledge a crime was committed.
In our legal system, you are only considered guilty of something after conviction. So if a pardon prevents charges, then legally you were never guilty of anything.
Of course you are personally free to assume whatever you want. Some people assume only guilty people are arrested, others don't make that assumption. You can assume only guilty people are pardoned, but others don't make that assumption.
No, it does not say "if they are believed to be charged soon".
A pardon ends any possibility of charges. It does not matter if charges are imminent, theoretical, or even realistic. Likewise, a pardon does not mean "something is at least legally questionable and they could be charged."
The power to pardon is unlimited (except for impeachment). That means it can be issued for anything (except for impeachment). So if the President felt like it, it would absolutely be within his power to pardon you for the crime of killing Abraham Lincoln even though you weren't alive at the time. He could pardon you for anything you might have done on New Years, even if everyone knows you didn't do anything at all on New Years.
The power of pardon conferred by the Constitution upon the President is unlimited except in cases of impeachment. It extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment.
I'm sure that Musk hopes that "people will be pushed to buy" his products.
But so far, that plan isn't working. In fact it's backfiring, people are running away from his products.