If you sell a large quantity (whether regular selling or short selling), it will drive the price down. If you short sell before regular selling, it will drive the price down even before you start your regular selling. Any gain from short selling will be offset by the lower price you get from your regular selling.
Taxpayers do not subsidize most mortgages in the US (with the exception of Ginnie Mae programs). Having a guarantee against default and fixed interest rates are two different things.
Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guarantee conforming mortgages that they securitize against default. They might ultimately be backed by the US Treasury and thus US taxpayers (if not in theory, then in practice).
However, when inflation is high, the burden on the borrower of paying off their fixed-rate mortgage goes down (as their income increases faster over time). Therefore, the borrowers are less likely to default during high inflation. Thus, having the GSEs guarantee these mortgages is not a subsidy that protects middle class borrowers from inflation. High inflation essentially eliminates the need for the guarantee by itself.
A mortgage with a fixed interest rate and no prepayment penalty is no subsidized since the borrower pays for the option to prepay the mortgage with a higher interest rates than they would be able to get if they were not able to prepay the loan. The market prices in the value of the call option.
The point being made here is that we actually do have the counterfactual available to us. Jumbo mortgages are not underwritten by the government, and they're exclusively private transactions between lender and borrower where the lender keeps the mortgage on the books and assumes all risk of default, interest rate changes, inflation, etc. And we know the market premium for this risk, because we can compare the difference in rates between a jumbo and conforming loan. It's about a half a percent.
I hesitate to speculate on what Musk will do specifically, but often in a poison pill situation a tender offer will be contingent on the removal of the poison pill. The point of the tender offer is not to buy the shares immediately, but to incentivize shareholders to put pressure on the board to remove the poison pill, then complete the tender offer it's removed.
The oil rig was owned by Transocean, but leased by BP.
"In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct. In April 2016, BP agreed to pay $20.8 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in United States history."
> The oil rig was owned by Transocean, but leased by BP.
Right, but "leased" in this context is closer to "leasing" a taxi than "leasing" a car. Transocean was described as the operator in news reports as well as on wikipedia. Also, most staff on the rig were not BP:
"A total of 126 workers were aboard. Seventy-nine were Transocean workers, six were BP employees and 41 were contracted."
>"In September 2014, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that BP was primarily responsible for the oil spill because of its gross negligence and reckless conduct. In April 2016, BP agreed to pay $20.8 billion in fines, the largest corporate settlement in United States history."
I'm not disputing BP's involvement/responsibility, just that it's at least somewhat justifiable to call it the "deepwater horizon oil spill" rather than the "bp oil spill", especially as the story was developing.
Also, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents, it seems pretty common to call energy accidents based on the plant/ship name, rather than the company name. For instance, we refer to "Three Mile Island accident", not the "EnergySolutions (the operator) nuclear disaster". The Exxon Valdez oil spil was a notable exception, but that's because the oil tanker was literally named "Exxon Valdez".
> Price discovery is broken when large market participants and market makers have access to mechanisms that enable unlimited shorting.
Actually, it's the other way round: you can only have accurate price discovery if people can take both long (buy) and short positions (short sell). If shorting is restricted, price discovery is much less likely, since only current owners of the shares can sell them. That's like only allowing current owners of the shares to buy more of them.
So, if you don't own the copyright and then mint an NFT, in theory the copyright holder could get the source image for your NFT taken down (depending on where it's hosted of course)
That hasn't stopped loads of NFTs of copyrighted images being minted ofc.
