|
Griffen posted:I thought I would be challenged with numbers, not analogies. If you want to discuss risk assessment of magnitude of risk and magnitudes of results, fine, but shouting "Vegas!!!!" doesn't make for a discussion as it is a false equivalence. lol you loving nerd
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
DaveWoo posted:https://twitter.com/brianbeutler/status/1080840246651219970 How does one bypass corporate media
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Solvency posted:No but it gives you some logic to base your reasoning on. We all know Trump is stupid and headstrong and works completely against conventional wisdom. Trump then goes and does something that will have a profound impact on the market. Now, the market question was, would Trump smarten up and backpedal or wound he stick to his guns regardless of consequences. Everyone else, in the whole world, has access to the same information, and much of it is built into the price of stocks mcmagic posted:The bigger issue is that you reflexively defend lovely Dem establishment politicians who have been political losers for years and who's bad, centrist politics are only dwarfed by their strategic incompetence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:that's a stupid thing to whine about because putting random numbers into scenarios you made up out of whole cloth is just a way to cloak those scenarios in an unjustified impression of precision. why your scenario is wrong isn't because you can't do basic math, it's because you snuck an assumption that you accurately can foresee a recession and that assumption is inaccurate. further, when you reason from the past in an "i did this and i came out ahead, ergo i was right", vegas is the very obvious counterpoint that shows why your argument was stupid. I find it interesting that yesterday you were arguing with someone about analyzing the structural reasons why the rich have the means to maintain their wealth, and yet you miss the inconsistency here. Yes, if you are a day trader and try to time the market in the short term, you'll eventually lose. Yet here, when we have larger timescales at work, with larger economic mechanisms in play, you still act as though there is never enough information to make an informed decision. Yes, there will never be complete knowledge of the situation, no decision is perfect. However, what you can do is analyze the situation and determine relative risks - some you are right, and some you are wrong. All the evidence we have points to a recession at some point: trade war, longest running expansion on record, oil prices dropping, the Fed needs to raise interests rates resulting in lower marginal value of stocks compared to bonds, Chinese slowdown, manufacturing slowdown, the list goes on. I see all these figures and ask myself "what is needed to make all this irrelevant and keep going the way I'm going?" I don't have an answer for that, so I make the conscious choice to shift holdings (and to whoever asked, I'm young, and they're small holdings, but its all I got) to something safer until I know more. Sure, I risk missing gains, but as we've just discussed, the chance of the market going sky-high is lower than the market tanking. The question I would like to know, is those corporate buy-backs: whose stock were they buying back? I'm curious if they were buying back executive stocks as a way to cash out some of their pay-in-stocks to exit the market for the same reasons I gave above. You've got Regan's former budget director screaming that a recession is coming, so I can't be the only one to think this. I'm not a market expert, so I don't know what signs there are of other activity behind the scenes, but I would wager that others are quietly dropping stocks too, and as Solvency put it, is that why the advice "never sell stocks" seems convenient? It is sound advice on average, but it also provides some additional stability for the markets to allow others to drop their stocks earlier and thereby beat the "average." Also, the concept of beating the average is about picking individual stocks vs index funds, not about when to enter and leave the market.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
2 years into this revolving door presidency and people are still clinging to the "he'll surround himself with people who actually know what they're doing!" dream. I really wish we as a society could reach some point between "crushing self-hatred" and "never regret anything or admit any mistake, ever"
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:The bigger issue is that you reflexively defend lovely Dem establishment politicians who have been political losers for years and who's bad, centrist politics are only dwarfed by their strategic incompetence. Do you just not realize the alternative speaker would have been a blue dog who would be against the progressive caucus 100 percent of the time, as opposed to Pelosi who is more often an ally than not? Or are you just being disengenious?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Warren is never going to be able to overcome this line of attack. At least if she runs she’ll probably consume all of the attention of Trump’s one track mind leaving the other Dems free from his attacks. Not unless Clinton even pretends to run. She could probably draw lighting from anyone, even Obama 3rd term.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:How does one bypass corporate media you make a quesadilla in your kitchen on perisope, duh
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:No one will remember this in a week. Get over yourself. I agree, so why loving bother pissing off the base? This isn’t what they want. This ramps down enthusiasm, when she should want to build it and build it until we’re ready to burst through the wall like the Kool Aid Man into our polling places. That’s what a good leader would do with this opportunity. selec fucked around with this message at 17:52 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Koalas Massacre posted:Shatner was the only white male main cast member who didn't collectively bargain with the network to get Nichelle Nichols and George Takei pay raises iirc Is this true? Lol what a gently caress. Man had what, the first on-tv interracial kiss with Nichols too and he couldn't be hassled to even do the bare minimum of the right thing behind the scenes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
trump being an insane racist will drive people towards her that otherwise think she handled the topic quite poorly, i don't understand the kind of genius-brain take that Trump's insane racism will be a huge political win that Warren can never overcome
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:38
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:I would put widespread grifting in a different category than conspiracy. A conspiracy implies that the goal was a global financial meltdown by a secret cabal of people that planned it all out in secret, when in reality it was just an unintended consequence of massive grifting by tons of independently operating players. the metaphor I like most for it is the Johnstown Flood. good book on it, by the by. extremely short form, town downriver from dam, lake around the dam bought up by a bunch of rich guys to be a private resort, they gently caress up the dam to make things more convenient for the resort, dam breaks, town destroyed, thousands dead. now, did some people conspire to break the law? oh yeah. did they conspire to destroy the town? ...well, no, they just didn't care if they did. would breaking up the conspiracy have helped prevent the problem, though? absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
Sad for the kids. Should have been the parents.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:lol you loving nerd Yes, because having substantive debate and discussion in the... wait or it... Debate and Discussion section is so nerdy. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
selec posted:I agree, so why loving bother pissing off the base? This isn’t what they want. This Ramos down enthusiasm, when she should want to build it and build it until we’re ready to burst through the wall like the Kool Aid Man into our polling places. No one in the base cares about this, especially not when the very next thing she does is refuse to compromise on the wall, which she is and has been doing. Edit: The only people who care are people who are hyper focused on damning Pelosi for any reason at all. I wonder why that could be? Internalized right wing narratives perhaps? CascadeBeta fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:40
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:Then post about that instead of making wild accusations, doofus. I do. All the loving time. Also, pointing out your bad faith posting isn't a wild accusation. CascadeBeta posted:Do you just not realize the alternative speaker would have been a blue dog who would be against the progressive caucus 100 percent of the time, as opposed to Pelosi who is more often an ally than not? Or are you just being disengenious? Whats your point? That I can't criticize her?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
Discussing the optimal strategy for investing in stocks (whether through funds or otherwise) is good harm minimization, but also kind of misses a point. In an ideal world, typical americans shouldn't need to invest in an inherently risky thing (the stock market) in order to secure savings for retirement. Your outcomes may depend on when you started saving significant amounts of money, when you plan to retire, or whether you chose some kind of market timing strategy. Ideally, any worker who works an appropriate amount of their life should be able to retire without having to worry about how the dow is doing at any point in time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:41
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:I do. All the loving time. Griffen posted:Yes, because having substantive debate and discussion in the... wait or it... Debate and Discussion section is so nerdy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Griffen posted:I find it interesting that Every single time I see this phrase pop up, I find that I can safely ignore everything that follows.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:42
|
|
|
Solvency posted:No but it gives you some logic to base your reasoning on. We all know Trump is stupid and headstrong and works completely against conventional wisdom. Trump then goes and does something that will have a profound impact on the market. Now, the market question was, would Trump smarten up and backpedal or wound he stick to his guns regardless of consequences. the problem isn't the idea that insight into trump is useful; the problem is the assumption that your insight into trump is better than the insight of "the market" as a whole. and just because you turned out "correct" doesn't mean your insight was, actually, better, because predicting the future is inherently probablistic. there was always a chance that trump's advisors would keep him under control and away from trade war, and just manage to slash regulations and pass tax cuts. the "market" view essentially had a view of what the relative probability of both outcomes was. you had a different one. but the market's view could have been more accurate even if you thought this outcome was more likely, and it happened. (as a simple example: if I think that the odds of the sum of two dice equal a number between 2 and 12 are the exact same for any number, and you correctly know that 7 is much more likely than 12, you're still correct if we roll the dice two times and get two 12s). now, i'm not a believer in the efficient market hypothesis. 'm using a lot of terminology, like a "market view" that sort of suggests I'm accepting the efficient market hypothesis, which I'm definitely not - the idea that the viewpoints of everyone in the market agglomerates into sort of a "market view" is still a useful tool even without the assumption that the "market view" is correct. there are definitely markets where you can outwit the market because it's inefficient and i would not rule out that the stock market is one of them. what i would say is that if the market is beatable, it's not going to be by you (or me). people who can beat the market will get snapped up by goldman or someone, and handsomely rewarded for investing goldman's hundreds of billions of dollars (this is also why paying people for investment advice seems like nonsense to me - if you, a regular guy, can get their advice it's not market-beating).
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
eke out posted:trump being an insane racist will drive people towards her This sounds like an awfully familiar assumption...one that didn't turn out so well in the recent past... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
15 minutes to first Democratic house session in 8 years. I assume we'll find out that Pelosi is speaker again before dinner though I'm skeptical they actually get a vote on a funding bill to reopen government today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:43
|
|
|
AlBorlantern Corps posted:How does one bypass corporate media It sounds bad, but act like an abusive spouse. What does Trump do? Does he suck up to them? Does he beg? No, he walks right up to the line of threatening their lives and calling for the executions. The right has consistently called the press unfair and biased and poo poo all over them for like 30 years now, and it has only been to their benefit to do so. The left could learn from that. Refuse to invite hostile press to events. Ignore questions you don’t like, answer the question you wish they’d asked. Never praise them except once in a blue moon. They are fake friends. Frenemies. Whatever it takes to conceptualize it, treat them like pisspigs and hold them utterly in contempt. They literally cannot do their jobs without the cooperation of politicians, at least not the lazy loving half-assed job they currently do, so make that access contingent on them admitting their name is Reek. selec fucked around with this message at 17:46 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:No one in the base cares about this, especially not when the very next thing she does is refuse to compromise on the wall, which she is and has been doing. we can tell that they're hyperfocused on damning pelosi, because they are damning pelosi, for a thing she is doing. unlike the people who are not hyperfocused on her, who are not. the best thing about the Tautology Express is that you always get off at the same stop you got on
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:44
|
|
|
^^ They're damning her for a thing that nobody outside this thread even gives a poo poo about in the slightest, especially compared to the things she's actually doing! mcmagic posted:I do. All the loving time. Also, pointing out your bad faith posting isn't a wild accusation. I'm asking if you're being disengenious or are just an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:45
|
|
|
Congratulations, I now know what negative talent looks, and sounds, like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Eeyo posted:Discussing the optimal strategy for investing in stocks (whether through funds or otherwise) is good harm minimization, but also kind of misses a point. In an ideal world, typical americans shouldn't need to invest in an inherently risky thing (the stock market) in order to secure savings for retirement. Your outcomes may depend on when you started saving significant amounts of money, when you plan to retire, or whether you chose some kind of market timing strategy. Ideally, any worker who works an appropriate amount of their life should be able to retire without having to worry about how the dow is doing at any point in time. HOWEVER, while we are in our current reality where investing is one of the best ways to get retirement money: any actual managed fund should, as you near retirement age, be shifting more and more of your assets into things that have little to no risk, such as bonds. If you're 63 and your savings are all shoved directly into the market somebody has REALLY hosed you over theflyingorc fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jan 3, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:46
|
|
|
Griffen posted:I find it interesting that yesterday you were arguing with someone about analyzing the structural reasons why the rich have the means to maintain their wealth, and yet you miss the inconsistency here. Yes, if you are a day trader and try to time the market in the short term, you'll eventually lose. Yet here, when we have larger timescales at work, with larger economic mechanisms in play, you still act as though there is never enough information to make an informed decision. Yes, there will never be complete knowledge of the situation, no decision is perfect. However, what you can do is analyze the situation and determine relative risks - some you are right, and some you are wrong. All the evidence we have points to a recession at some point: trade war, longest running expansion on record, oil prices dropping, the Fed needs to raise interests rates resulting in lower marginal value of stocks compared to bonds, Chinese slowdown, manufacturing slowdown, the list goes on. I see all these figures and ask myself "what is needed to make all this irrelevant and keep going the way I'm going?" I don't have an answer for that, so I make the conscious choice to shift holdings (and to whoever asked, I'm young, and they're small holdings, but its all I got) to something safer until I know more. Sure, I risk missing gains, but as we've just discussed, the chance of the market going sky-high is lower than the market tanking. all of this argument supports the idea that someone might be able to beat the market. i do not have an inherent objection to that idea - i'm not a believer in the efficient market hypothesis. however, by the nature of a market (and the nature of averages) there can only be a minority of such people*. why on earth would you think it's you, instead of people who spends all their time trying to do it? that's the problem here: beating the market is a zero-sum game, and we have no reason to believe that you're the person who is gonna win. *because not everyone is investing the same amount of money, the amount of those people can be arbitrarily small as long as they have much more money to play with than everyone else, and they will gravitate towards having most of the money (by winning and/or by being hired by the rich) so it'll be a small minority
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
Kale posted:15 minutes to first Democratic house session in 8 years. I assume we'll find out that Pelosi is speaker again before dinner though I'm skeptical they actually get a vote on a funding bill to reopen government today. I know that subpoenaing Trump’s businesses and tax returns are the lowest of low priorities compared to getting the government back up and running, but damnit I’d love to see him shriek in anger as the House Investigative committee says “first order of business, what funding has the President received from Russia”. Also if PAYGO is still in this vote I fully expect the first round to fail as PAYGO is poo poo and I’m glad reps are coming around to understand that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
CascadeBeta posted:^^ They're damning her for a thing that nobody outside this thread even gives a poo poo about in the slightest, especially compared to the things she's actually doing! People outside of this thread won't care about her words, true. But her frequent assurances that she's going to be a bipartisan speaker who reaches across the aisle, combined with her weird insistence on Pay-Go, don't seem to suggest that she's going to pursue much of a progressive legislative agenda at all. That's something that voters will care about. Refusing to compromise on the wall is great, but it's pretty much the least a Democratic speaker could do at this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:49
|
|
|
actually that is probably the key point: beating the market by definition is a zero sum game. you cannot consistently win a zero sum game without an edge over other players in the market. why is it you, the random guy posting in a bad thread on the internet, the person who possesses that edge instead of, say, goldman sachs. why are you not the sucker, the guy playing against someone with an edge (again, goldman sachs) who is giving up some of your returns so the guy with the edge can have extra returns?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Majorian posted:This sounds like an awfully familiar assumption...one that didn't turn out so well in the recent past... we're pretty obviously talking about democratic voters in a primary, but your attempted own also doesn't even really make much sense in the context of 2016 CascadeBeta posted:I'm asking if you're being disengenious or are just an idiot. CB you read this thread regularly enough to know the answer to this question is clearly 'por que no los dos?'
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
stop yts 2k19
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:I know that subpoenaing Trump’s businesses and tax returns are the lowest of low priorities compared to getting the government back up and running, but damnit I’d love to see him shriek in anger as the House Investigative committee says “first order of business, what funding has the President received from Russia”. pelosi and the house democrats can walk and chew gum at the same time
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
I say nod in agreement to their investment tactics and let them find out in the long run what we're trying to refute here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:I know that subpoenaing Trump’s businesses and tax returns are the lowest of low priorities compared to getting the government back up and running, but damnit I’d love to see him shriek in anger as the House Investigative committee says “first order of business, what funding has the President received from Russia”. I kind of picture him just sitting in his room today with a cheeseburger and diet coke hate watching Fox News observing and commenting on the first new session of Congress and vicariously bitch tweeting about it. I mean they kind of run the country at this point by being Trump's inner council of advisors. I mean they're about the only people Trump actually seems to seriously listen to and consider the positions of so they'll likely tell him what to think about each event on the floor and he'll just tweet it out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Again, you just loving know there is a version of this on Ben's hard drive for Ben's hungry eyes only where Trump has a dong that touches the floor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
eke out posted:we're pretty obviously talking about democratic voters in a primary, I'm still not seeing much of a reason to believe that Trump's racism against Warren will drive Democratic primary voters into her camp. Can you explain why you think that will happen? quote:but your attempted own also doesn't even really make much sense in the context of 2016 A lot of folks (including yours truly) mistakenly thought that Trump's racism would drive more people out to vote against him. This isn't a controversial point dude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:53
|
|
|
Using a backtrack with vocals is so lame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 22:42 |
|
|
Does anyone else hear the exact same song in the background out of sync of his singing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2019 17:54
|
|
