Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday June 14 2020, @09:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the That’s-a-big-apple- dept.

Apple is now worth 1.5 trillion dollars:

[On Wednesday, June 10], Apple became the first US company to achieve a $1.5 trillion market capitalization. The stock surged even as investors began pulling back in many other areas of the economy.

Reasons given by investors for the optimism include anticipation of the launch of a 5G iPhone this fall, signs of strong App Store sales, and interest in the potential of ARM-driven Macs, based on a Bloomberg report yesterday that said Apple may announce an ARM transition at its annual developer conference later this month.

Yesterday and today, Apple's movement ran counter to most of the rest of the market, where investors' actions have reflected fear of a global coronavirus resurgence and anticipation of bad news from the US Federal Reserve in a report due out today.

Market capitalization essentially means the total number of shares of a company being traded multiplied by the current trading value of a share in that company, making it the best publicly available measure of the company's actual value.

AAPL was at $338.40 per share as of June 13 which gave it a total market capitalization of $1.47 trillion.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday June 15 2020, @01:43PM (13 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday June 15 2020, @01:43PM (#1008123)

    Without some sort of reform on what tax money is being spent on, that'll happen anyway.

    Even the Roman Empire and all of its corruption took 450 years to fall.

    I'm honestly more concerned about fall due to ecological disaster than I am about fall due to governmental corruption or hostile takeover - we have considerably better (but still inadequate) transparency, both domestic and globally, than the Roman Empire did - absent serious challenges from nature, that transparency should serve to extend our viability as a republic much longer. Unless Kurzweil is more prophet than kook, nobody alive today will live to see the fall of civilization due to overtaxation.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 16 2020, @03:58AM (12 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 16 2020, @03:58AM (#1008477) Journal

    I'm honestly more concerned about fall due to ecological disaster than I am about fall due to governmental corruption or hostile takeover

    Thing is, I see a lot more people here on SN complaining about corruption and hostile takeover in the US than ecological disaster. Something that is such a prevalent threat now, probably will continue to be a bigger threat than ecological disaster.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:32AM (11 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 16 2020, @11:32AM (#1008543)

      I see a lot more people here on SN complaining about corruption and hostile takeover in the US than ecological disaster. Something that is such a prevalent threat now, probably will continue to be a bigger threat than ecological disaster.

      It's almost always the disaster you're not preparing for that does the fatal damage.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 16 2020, @12:51PM (10 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 16 2020, @12:51PM (#1008579) Journal
        Sorry, there's a lot more prep for ecological disaster than there is for corruption and over-taxation.
        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday June 16 2020, @01:39PM (9 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday June 16 2020, @01:39PM (#1008611)

          than there is for corruption and over-taxation

          The whole fucking bureaucracy is busying itself with the "prevention of fraud and corruption" - making elaborate rules about who deserves what and then using those rules as a pretext for deep proctological examinations of every transaction of value.

          As for over-taxation? What are the first, last, and 90% of the middle speeches concerned with on every piece of legislation ever proposed? What do the god-damned local schoolboard officials flog on cable-access TV whenever they have an excuse? "Reduce spend, reduce tax, reduce, reduce, reduce." Sure, they're all talking out their asses and if you look at actual results the "party of fiscal responsibility" spends and taxes more than the other one - not to mention non-disclosed corporate giveaways.

          There's plenty of real-world activity _starting_ to concern itself with the environment in the last 50 years, it's a relatively brand-new thing. People have been bitching and moaning and occupying government with concerns of overtaxation since tax collection started, millennia ago.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:08AM (8 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 18 2020, @08:08AM (#1009466) Journal

            The whole fucking bureaucracy is busying itself with the "prevention of fraud and corruption" - making elaborate rules about who deserves what and then using those rules as a pretext for deep proctological examinations of every transaction of value.

            So theater. Got to account for the screws, but nobody blinks an eye when multi-hundred billion dollar programs fail to deliver.

            Meanwhile I can point to credible efforts to address ecological disaster over the past half century.

            As for over-taxation? What are the first, last, and 90% of the middle speeches concerned with on every piece of legislation ever proposed? What do the god-damned local schoolboard officials flog on cable-access TV whenever they have an excuse? "Reduce spend, reduce tax, reduce, reduce, reduce." Sure, they're all talking out their asses and if you look at actual results the "party of fiscal responsibility" spends and taxes more than the other one - not to mention non-disclosed corporate giveaways.

            Wow, "speeches". Truly making great strides there.

            There's plenty of real-world activity _starting_ to concern itself with the environment in the last 50 years, it's a relatively brand-new thing. People have been bitching and moaning and occupying government with concerns of overtaxation since tax collection started, millennia ago.

            Sense the pattern yet, Joe?

            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:32AM (7 children)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday June 18 2020, @11:32AM (#1009483)

              Meanwhile I can point to credible efforts

              Meanwhile, you have been fooled by bird-washing PR programs where the oil industry spends a few millions (chump change) to make videos of "wildlife rescue efforts" like where they wash a seal and then release it to be eaten by an Orca 20 seconds later.

              Both areas stop small amounts of the problem as theater to distract from the much larger problems that go un-addressed.

              Sense the pattern yet, Joe?

              Yes, I've known about your selective perception and ignorance for a long time.

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 19 2020, @01:44AM (6 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 19 2020, @01:44AM (#1009848) Journal

                Meanwhile, you have been fooled by bird-washing PR programs where the oil industry spends a few millions (chump change) to make videos of "wildlife rescue efforts" like where they wash a seal and then release it to be eaten by an Orca 20 seconds later.

                What do you have against feeding orcas? Let us keep in mind that there's a little more to environmentalism than oil cleanup theater. For example, there's the vast reduction in pollution in the developed world, particularly compared to the 50s and 60s. That's genuine ecological disaster averted. And there's the conservation movement which has for well over a century helped avert the ecological disaster of habitat destruction. A lot of that happened at the government level.

                Now, when are we going to ever see similar movement towards addressing corruption, overtaxation, and related issues like complexity of regulation? See the pattern now? The huge difference between environmentalism and this other stuff is that government routinely goes beyond theater to address ecological problems.

                • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 19 2020, @02:49AM (5 children)

                  by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 19 2020, @02:49AM (#1009874)

                  there's the vast reduction in pollution in the developed world

                  Slow clap, I'm just as impressed by "pollution reduction" as I am by "population control."

                  May you be cursed to live 400 years, forced to eat bug paste and breathe through a machine because the air quality is incompatible with life, all because we've let ourselves be led around by psychopaths who are a decade or two from certain death themselves.

                  Yes, there are "real measures" being taken, it's been a long time since a U.S. river caught fire and that's progress, of a sort. It could be worse. The Cuban missile crisis certainly could have gone worse, lots of things could be worse, but the way we're going feels like an overweight underpowered aircraft heading for a short runway - we might live through the landing, but it's unlikely to be pretty.

                  --
                  🌻🌻 [google.com]
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 19 2020, @12:21PM (4 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 19 2020, @12:21PM (#1009984) Journal

                    Slow clap, I'm just as impressed by "pollution reduction" as I am by "population control."

                    Truth is an absolute defense against fallacy by babbling.

                    May you be cursed to live 400 years, forced to eat bug paste and breathe through a machine because the air quality is incompatible with life, all because we've let ourselves be led around by psychopaths who are a decade or two from certain death themselves.

                    And may you be cursed to get a clue. Reality won this game.

                    Yes, there are "real measures" being taken, it's been a long time since a U.S. river caught fire and that's progress, of a sort.

                    See, you're already starting. I get that you long for the bug paste utopia where JoeMerchants are always right, but we don't live in that world. We'll just have to make due with the amazing successes we've had instead. Rivers not burning any more are a few of those successes.

                    The Cuban missile crisis certainly could have gone worse, lots of things could be worse, but the way we're going feels like an overweight underpowered aircraft heading for a short runway - we might live through the landing, but it's unlikely to be pretty.

                    How about we try going with what works?

                    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 19 2020, @12:46PM (3 children)

                      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 19 2020, @12:46PM (#1009993)

                      Truth is an absolute defense against fallacy by babbling.

                      I believe your truth to be short sighted, and therefore missing the bigger and more relevant picture.

                      Reality won this game.

                      Your statement, I believe that you believe that in your own mind, which is of course all that matters to you.

                      the amazing successes we've had instead. Rivers not burning any more are a few of those successes.

                      May I point out the tens of thousands of years that people lived near rivers which did not burn until "progress" happened? Your mental ability to move the goalposts to convenient low points and thereby demonstrate "progress" to yourself is worrying, not as worrying as the larger trends in the world, but indicative of a source of the ongoing problems.

                      How about we try going with what works?

                      Do you live under the delusion that either one of us has more than an infinitesimal influence on what really happens in the future?

                      --
                      🌻🌻 [google.com]
                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 19 2020, @01:52PM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 19 2020, @01:52PM (#1010037) Journal

                        I believe your truth to be short sighted, and therefore missing the bigger and more relevant picture.

                        Your beliefs don't matter. What you can back them with does.

                        May I point out the tens of thousands of years that people lived near rivers which did not burn until "progress" happened?

                        It's billions of years really. And well, progress, such as it is, happened. You can't take it back now.

                        Your mental ability to move the goalposts to convenient low points and thereby demonstrate "progress" to yourself is worrying

                        What moving the goalposts? History happened. It's folly to suppose that we can just revert to a pre-industrial world. And as I repeatedly have noted, we've made a lot of progress, including said curbing of ecological disasters, to the present.

                        Do you live under the delusion that either one of us has more than an infinitesimal influence on what really happens in the future?

                        Then there's no reason for you to continue. Become less wrong.

                        • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 19 2020, @05:50PM (1 child)

                          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday June 19 2020, @05:50PM (#1010117)

                          What you can back them with does.

                          To who? Show me the people with the power to implement change who listen to "backed data," over emotion, greed, more power, more money, etc.

                          It's folly to suppose that we can just revert to a pre-industrial world.

                          It's folly to even propose such a thing. Now: reverting to pre-industrial total human population numbers, that's virtually inevitable (on your scale of Billions of years) - the question is: how painful will the transition be?

                          Become less wrong.

                          I value knowledge of your perspective, but not with any intention of adopting it as my own. Your belief that you "know" with some form of absolutism right vs. wrong continues to devalue your opinions.

                          --
                          🌻🌻 [google.com]
                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 19 2020, @11:58PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 19 2020, @11:58PM (#1010202) Journal

                            Show me the people with the power to implement change who listen to "backed data," over emotion, greed, more power, more money, etc.

                            You've already acknowledged that rivers in the US don't catch on fire anymore. And I mentioned the conservation thing. So someone has implemented positive environmental change (and checking off the doing something about ecological disaster but not the corruption list mentioned earlier). At this point, why does the motive for that positive change matter? If someone is making the world a better place for emotion, greed, more power, more money, etc, then that works for me. My take is that most environmentalists do it for emotion, so they fall solidly in that blob.

                            Moving on:

                            It's folly to suppose that we can just revert to a pre-industrial world.

                            It's folly to even propose such a thing. Now: reverting to pre-industrial total human population numbers, that's virtually inevitable (on your scale of Billions of years) - the question is: how painful will the transition be?

                            Good thing we're heading in a good direction, right?

                            Become less wrong.

                            I value knowledge of your perspective, but not with any intention of adopting it as my own. Your belief that you "know" with some form of absolutism right vs. wrong continues to devalue your opinions.

                            And yet, we have absolute truth in this discussion. For example, both of us have acknowledged my basic premise, that there are examples of prepping for ecological disaster in such things as rivers getting cleaned up to the point they no longer catch on fire, land conservation, and demonstrate some degree of cleanup of oil spills to the point that the orcas are eating healthy. We also seem to have a problem coming up with examples of prepping for corruption and overtaxation (I grant that foreign invasion gets massive prep). So at this point, you've granted, whether you feel it or not, that there is prep for ecological disaster and not so much for the other.

                            You acknowledged it, I did as well. I consider it absolute between us now.

                            Now, we're supposed to care more about the motives for this prep than the actual prep itself? That's moving the goalposts.