nebolo

Participating in corporate governance and actively forming corporate strategy is a very different issue. And to my knowledge, ETFs and mutual funds do not participate in any meaningful way in management, i.e. they do not act as activist investors.

Credit card fees are about 2-3%. So if they are doing this, it must come from not charging tax.

Yes, but for that person the all advantages of Bitcoin that are typically mentioned (trust-less, secure, etc.) go out of the window.

I live very close to Vienna, visit often, and things are perfectly fine. Safer than any US city I've been to.

Yes, perhaps partially, but would you not agree that the amount of outrage-worthy news has also increased? Perhaps the issue is not the lens, but the reality...

There is literally no difference. The value of Aramco is the discounted value of all future cash flows. So selling 5% in an IPO is equivalent to selling 5% of all future cash flows (discounted appropriately). This allows them to diversify now rather than later/gradually.

There are other non-financial advantages of having at least partial public ownership of a publicly owned company like Aramco, like increased transparency and accountability.

Bonds ARE debt.

> it does cause a net increase of miles driven compared to people driving themselves.

It's possible, but I'd need to see both sides of the equations as well. How many miles are driven looking for parking (I've seen estimates as high as 30%). Do people forego car use because they don't have a car (and the marginal is therefore higher)?

Interesting question, but the article doesn't really go that deep in answering it.

Most likely they were full, which is why there was surge pricing.

I don't think Munro is in that business. Understanding how something is built is different from how to consistently and price effectively build it to specs/tolerances.

Why? Why would you expect a software engineer working for a nonprofit to look at discount airline economy class tickers?

You don't like some of the more controversial laureates therefore we should ignore it. Is that the point?

Each of those people received the award for a reason. You may disagree with it, and perhaps that reason (particularly in light of subsequent developments) was insufficient.

While I agree with you, I think what is claimed it that Israel and AQ are unique in their potential for destruction ("threaten world peace") not necessarily their previous actions in that regard.

If that is the case, comparing their body count is almost meaningless.

If the nature of the law, is such as to continually breach international law, and companies are consistently and successfully challenging that law, a state may feel pressured to either: 1. Withdraw from the free trade agreement, or 2. change its laws to conform to the terms of the free trade agreement.

This is not a bug but a feature: the ISDS is designed to ensure that states abide by international law and respect the terms of the free trade agreement they consented to. This is fully in line with the concept of pacta sunt servanda and the relationship between international and municipal law.

Finally, if you are the United States, you can also simply ignore the arbitral tribunal and continue to be in breach of the agreement and international law, because, well, what are they gonna do?

ISDS does not "trump national sovereignty" and in no conceivable way can a business "strong-arm" sovereign entities. This is complete nonsense.

The "tribunals" are arbitral tribunals and as such are manned by lawyers chosen and agreed on by BOTH sides - just like any other arbitral tribunal. They can apportion compensation for damages caused by breaches of international law. No international court can "force" a state to change a law (this is constitution 101), and it is not the case here.

Philip Morris is seeking compensation for the purported expropriation of intellectual property rights (their brand). Almost no-one believes they have any chance of winning. In fact, it seems that they are doing it solely to press for time in other jurisdictions: i.e. some countries are waiting for the result of the arbitration before introducing similar laws. They probably figured out that potential lost profits in foreign markets in that time frame are likely higher than legal fees.

Not one of your points is accurate (and you reference John Oliver and a comic).

No, the sentence says negotiations are secret so there can be agreement.

The agreement doesn't exist yet, it's being negotiated. However, there are misconceptions about how FTAs, ISDSs and public international law in general work.

Free trade agreements are always negotiated in secret in order to enable the two sides to come to a comprehensive agreement. Transparent negotiations fail.

ISDS does NOT entitle companies to compensation when a country changes laws - it entitles foreign investors to compensation when a country violates their rights under public international law, for example the right not to have their property expropriated. This actually does happen fairly often, and in order to promote international investment it is a good idea to have treaties which regulate it.

In fact cigarette companies are claiming that by prohibiting them from using their branding, Australia expropriated their intellectual property. NO ONE expects the cigarette companies to actually win, and as such they will not be entitled to any compensation.

There is a huge number of misconceptions about ISDSs and the TPP in this thread.