The first sentence is correct. The rest is not. Let's get rid of this myth that rich people prefer to lose money than to pay tax. No one has ever refused to make more money, even if that money gets taxed (at least no one that understands taxes and basic finance).

You're right though that PE firms are leeches. They're firms by rich people for rich people, that milk the shit out of anything they touch. The reason why there's an issue now is clearly stated in the summary (for once!): "attractive takeover targets become scarce and financing costs remain elevated while exits prove increasingly difficult". PE firms do not create anything. They're milking what exists. There aren't enough companies to buy, because the true economy (which is people producing stuff and people buying stuff) isn't actually doing as well as the fortunes of the rich. All those PE firms are fighting for the same targets, making pricing frothy. And guess what, once it's frothy, you still want to make money off of it... who's going to buy it? Other PE firms? IPOs are harder in a bad economy, retail investors or the underwriting banks are more risk-averse.

So yeah, at the end, if you as the PE GP cannot show good results... why would I as an LP commit to more money? Some PEs will die, the successful ones will live. That's no different than any other industry. I just wish the whole PE one would die, rather than milk other companies to death.

That's correct. I've seen so many posts here that blame IT, accounting, procurement, whatever. I've worked in large companies most of my life... and very few employees in any function want to do the wrong thing, or would want to prioritize profit over "correct" behavior. That's all the way from entry-level to middle manager (I include director level as middle manager), and including some VPs. People just don't care that much about corporate profit, when the counterbalance to corporate profit is doing a bad job or making your colleagues miserable.

The only people that are truly incentivized to cut corners in the name of profit are high-level execs. They're incentivized because that's literally their job, but you can be sure decisions to cheap out on corporate security was made up there.

And plenty of retired players are very wealthy because they invested... the biggest difference being that people that come from wealth, or acquired their wealth via business-y means, know how to play the game. The people that won the lotto do not, and a lot of them will waste their money. Athletes are basically lotto winners.

Other than from very short periods in history, the entire world has been a plutocracy. Right now is no different.

That's not the right example. The right example is Huawei. We forced all our telecom companies to rip out working Huawei equipment, because "national security", when in reality it was protectionism. Now China is doing the same thing on AI chips.

If we continue on our current trajectory, we'll end up in a divided world with 2 very different technology stacks. We're already most of the way there anyway. In other news we've always been at war with Eastasia...

Worse, an RTX 3080 is also.. quite good. It's not fair to say it was released in 2020. After all, the 5050 was released this year, but the 3080 hardware is more powerful. They're essentially asking for your machine to be updated as of last 2 years to play the game correctly.

That title makes me mad. It costs more and is less profitable, AS ROI FALLS?! Well no fucking shit, what is the color of Napoleon's white horse? "Business makes less money as profit falls". I know that was the Bloomberg title, but please editors, do something. At least rephrase it to "MBA ROI falls as costs increase and post-MBA salary increase drops". Something that's not completely tautological.

Ok, vent aside... Yeah, the MBA is becoming less of a differentiator. The economy is not great for workers, and MBA schools always want the folks with the most potential, thus probably those that made the most in the first place. Everything is cyclical though, I'm not betting on the MBA industry dying for good.

If you follow the link, it goes to Wikipedia that goes to a transcript from a PBS show where "sugar water" is mentioned once. As best I can tell it's a metaphor for uninteresting, uninspiring products that don't change but that people keep buying (i.e. Pepsi/Coke).

And let's be real, this whole article is intellectual masturbation from a dude that just writes about tech to people that care about tech (so, us the Slashdot crowd). Most people irl don't give a shit about innovation other than "does it make my life better", and no one cares or is bummed out if Apple (or any other tech firm) doesn't change the world.

Go to that link from BMO and read it. Turns out dividends can be taxed less than capital gains.

As for the timing of dividends vs. capital gain, yeah that's fair. In practice though.. the timing matters most when you're working (i.e. defer everything when you're drawing a big salary, hence not having a huge dividend portfolio for younger folks). If you're retired, it's less relevant, you get dividends or need to sell a certain amount each year / month.

Of course they're not free money. They're redistribution of company profits to company owners, when the company doesn't know what to do with the money. They're not "bad" though, because as an owner you WANT the company to make money and to give you the part of profit you are owed.

A few issues with your arguments:
1. Dividends are not taxed at your income rate, at least in North America. In the US (and in Canada) eligible/qualified dividends are taxed at a much lower rate than income; not exactly the same as capital gains, but in a similar range.
2. Stock buybacks are good when the stock is fairly valued or undervalued. When the stock is overvalued, it's a waste of money. Like you, I like being in charge, which means if I think the company is overvalued, I'd much rather that money be returned to me via dividends so I can choose what to do with the cash.

So no, dividends are not bad. Like any other corporate action, they run the gamut from "this is dumb as fuck" to "best idea since sliced bread". I invite you to better understand the nuances of something before taking such a strong stance, it will serve you well.

Dividends are not taxed as income in Canada, because there's a tax credit on eligible dividends (BMO explanation I found on Google). Depending on your tax bracket I think you may be better (or worse) off with dividends vs. capital gain, but in either case it's much better than income.

The summary makes it sound like dividends are bad. Dividends are not bad. Funds that use derivatives based on unstable companies or frothy assets are bad. Most (all?) of YieldMax's products are... dubious, at best.

Using "long words" was actively discouraged when I started college. It became more and more about business communication, and we were told to avoid complicated words, only use an active tense, etc. That's what I hated most about English classes; instead of making you want to learn about the language and develop a sense of written aesthetics if you will, it forced you to write like a robot (nowadays we'd say like an AI).

There's a difference, I think, between reading a book and reading on social media (or even short articles). I read Slashdot, and stuff on Reddit, but it's short and bursts of random knowledge (heck, as we all know, most people just read a headline and comments, not even an actual article). None of that reading truly engages my brain, but it does put it in a hyperactive mode as I jump from comment to comment, topic to topic. However, reading a fiction novel seems to both slow down and focus my brain.

Is a decrease in "hard" reading a cause for concern? Instinctively I'd say yes as I notice a difference for me, but I don't really know. That's a knee-jerk reaction, and concern from writers and librarians don't come with a factual conclusion on the impact to your brain in the long-term. This whole thing is just an observation of what's happening, with no answer on "so what".

It's funny... the longer I work, and work in a middle management role, the more I realize there is no good solution for stuff like this. You either accept non-standard processes (e.g., a less objective, less standardized performance evaluation) or red tape. In large companies, red tape is often necessary to have a semblance of governance. Small companies never have to worry about this, because they're not public and don't have the size where governance and standardization is an issue.

The problem is when your CEO wants both agility and governance, and doesn't understand that wanting both gives you neither. Even if they're willing to massively invest in a process redesign, system implementation etc., it fundamentally doesn't work. Even with the best systems and automation, people are keenly aware of bureaucracy. You can also be sure C-level will blame the ones below them, and working teams will blame the ones above them, for any impression of "there's too much bureaucracy, we're not agile enough" AND "we don't have enough visibility on things, there's no well-defined process".

The Czech. They 100% want that foam on top.