Isn't this mean reversion? The US seems to have exhausted much its cheap developable land near major city centers, and I think you'll eventually see the same pattern that seems to play out through the bulk of the world: Extremely expensive land relative to salary, and an entrenched (hereditary?) land-holding baronage.
We have not done that. There's still plenty of developable land close to cities, and plenty of inefficient uses of space that can be better utilized. The problem is who owns it.
> So we have inspectors of inspectors and people making instruments for inspectors to inspect inspectors.
With all due respect to mister Fuller, this sounds like bullshit from someone that hasn't worked in manufacturing.
Quality manufacturing processes are hard, and this complexity only increases with the sophistication of what's being produced. Usually, the measurement systems in place are a tradeoff between cost, efficacy, and regulatory requirements - and I guarantee if an inspection can be removed, some engineer is begging to do it.
The consequences of having zero property tax are (maybe unintuitively) extremely awful. Ignoring all of the arguments regarding commons and market liquidity, you essentially cede enormous amounts of power to large landholders who can cheaply (relative to the average citizen) monopsonize local real estate markets.
EDIT: Maybe in practice oligopsonize, but either way on a long timescale you can say goodbye to widespread freeholding.
Question - Why would they remain so committed to a dividend if:
1. They're losing money
2. Things are not going to improve near-term
3. Debt is currently (more) expensive
4. They're in a hugely capital intensive business and are on a current spending spree for competitiveness reasons.
Other than some hand-wavy 'optics' rationales it seems like a bad idea, but I guess this is why I don't sit on the board of an F500.
edit: should also note that tax drag is another malus against the dividend concept, altogether (rightly or wrongly) telling me the story that "we really don't have anything better to do with the money".
If I understand it correctly, Intel would lose their patent cross licensing with AMD upon a "a Change of Control", significantly reducing its value. However, there are exceptions to that that are redacted from the public license.
Hostile takeover isn’t a change of ownership. It’s the same company just taken private by someone like Bain and capital…. Likely then gutted for max profitability.
They can't even maintain their dividend with their latest quarterly profits. Dividend yield is 4.85%, so they should approx. be paying out $0.34 each quarter while they just made only $0.10 per share.
On the plus side, you can just avoid companies paying nonsensical dividends and focus on companies actually creating shareholder value with their money.
