snake_doc

> Most publicly traded companies rarely issue new shares.

False, most public companies have stock based compensation plans, which are ways of issuing new shares. Without them, they would need to substitute stock compensation with cash to acquire talent.

Facebook issues shares every time they approve a new stock based compensation plan.

GDP ~= Capital * Productivity * Labor Population

You’re missing an critical component from the Solow model.

https://economics.mit.edu/files/7181

Absolutely incorrect, majority controlling stakes and full cash takeovers have different standards and requirements. Majority stakes usually require majority of the minority, which is not 51%.

https://www.lw.com/thoughtLeadership/the-latham-and-watkins-...

Much of strategic deterrence (the formal term for nuclear deterrence) is analyzed and approached through game theory. So much so that the US DoD's entire strategy rests on 1 simple assumption:

"Every operational plan in the DoD, and every other capability we have, rests on the assumption that strategic deterrence, and in particular nuclear deterrence, will hold. If strategic or nuclear deterrence fails, integrated deterrence and no other plan or capability in the DoD will work as designed. The Nation’s nuclear forces underpin integrated deterrence and enable the U.S., our Allies and partners to prevent and, if necessary, confront aggression around the globe using all instruments of national power"

Source: https://www.stratcom.mil/Portals/8/Documents/2022%20USSTRATC...

The threat of Russia's deployment of non-treaty tactical weapons on a non-NATO state has been carefully analyzed for a long time: https://sgp.fas.org/crs/nuke/RL32572.pdf

The most credible reason for Russia to commit to such a deployment of weapons is if Russia believed that the deployment would ultimately lead to a de-escalation of a conflict ("escalate to de-escalate").

At this point, the US/NATO has made clear publicly that any escalation to WMDs/strategic weapons will lead to a response in kind. A response in kind would not lead to de-escalation, and thus Russia's threat isn't really credible other than for information warfare purposes.

But of course, much of game theory rests on the assumption of common knowledge of rationality. This is why the diplomatic/intelligence establishment is so concerned with the state of Putin's rationality.

Considering that the NYT doesn’t hire copy editors anymore, it’s not surprising. They stopped in 2017.

The US is a republic of 50 states, a federal district (capital), and other territories. Otherwise known as a federation where states dictate their individual representation at the federation. States can do as they please from that regards, mostly.