Swamp Yankee
-
Posts
151 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Swamp Yankee
-
-
On 2/8/2021 at 5:15 PM, ClearedHot said:
Having served as the TF commander in Africa...I understand exactly what and who they are.
There are other reasons they were not previously designated..even though many of us in the field asked for it. I have heard the cover story about getting aid and other help in but it doesn't not reality or the situation on the ground. Bottomline, these clowns are a proxy for Iran and as Trump elevated his fight against Iran we should have kept the pressure on. When it comes to Biden I have zero faith after he and his boss send an airplane load of American Pesos to the Iranian government. This was a big mistake.
I gave you the actual reason for the late designation, which wasn't the impact on aid distribution. How much it affected our efforts against ISIS is unclear. With regard to Iran, paying the $1.3b interest on a 1979 $400m FMS refund was an especially wimp move on Obama's part, although the original MoU did stipulate freezing the funds in an interest-bearing account.
-
17 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:
How could you not? Investing 10% of that salary at 7% ROR yields $1m liquid in 23 years. Not even counting real estate appreciation, which is how most people get there. Inflation not accounted for.
https://smartasset.com/investing/investment-calculator#OCfdEpDGFU
I'm assuming you are being sarcastic. $1m is chump change.
-
On 2/6/2021 at 6:49 PM, jazzdude said:
I took the implied meaning as an election whose results were declared invalid. That outcome would be by far much worse than a "Trump win." Dems and many on the left seem to think this would've been the worst election outcome, but it's not; an election being tampered with is the worst outcome, regardless of who won.
I don't think we have any real precedence on what to do if the presidential election was declared invalid, especially if it was declared invalid late (like in December or January, since lawsuits take time).
Does the incumbent stay in power? Do they (president and VP) step down while the election is redone, and have the speaker of the house fill in until it's certified? Though the latter doesn't make sense either because they would've also been on the same ballot as a representative, so would also be declared invalid. So it wipes out the House as well. I guess you'd still have 2/3 of the Senate.
And leading up to that, how would communities redo the election to avoid being tampered with a second time in a relevant time period? How does mail in or absentee voting work if you're trying to redo the election quickly? Or do military members and dependents overseas just lose their right to vote for an election? That can also sway a redo election.
Finally, it would destroy our moral credibility in international politics if we can't hold open and fair elections, especially when we have held ourselves up as the champions of democracy. So we'd also lose at least some of our ability to influence other nations based on our ideology. I'm sure China or Russia would be more than happy to use our failed election to increase their influence in the world.I agree. If Trump was legitimately reelected many would have been disappointed, but the country would survive.
However, we barely missed suffering the 2nd worst outcome; a "strongman" leader forcing their continuance. Past examples include Lukashenko in Belarus, Morales in Bolivia, and Hernandez in Honduras. Not exactly shining examples of free-market economies with significant personal liberty. We dodged that bullet.
-
On 2/6/2021 at 3:00 PM, pawnman said:
Because Trump said they were terrorists, so Biden has to say they are not.
On 2/6/2021 at 11:18 AM, ClearedHot said:Biden administration to remove terrorist designation for Yemen's Houthi militia
Iran jumping for joy...I don't understand this decision especially when we have been supplying arms to Saudi (until Biden suspended sales to them.), to help them push back this group which has clear demonstrated ties to the Iranian and North Korean governments.
The Houthis (Ansar Allah) are a terrorist organization by any definition. However, this development is more about the Trump admin scoring political points on their way out.
Trump did not declare Houthis a terrorist organization until 10 Jan 2021. By waiting until their final few days, the Republicans could avoid foreign policy conflicts while making Biden look bad when he inevitably reversed this last-minute designation. Mission accomplished in that regard.
The humanitarian aid concerns are real, although Trump likely did not designate earlier because Houthis are in conflict with ISIS / ISIL / AQAP (the enemy of my enemy is my friend concept). To their credit, in 2018 the Trump admin designated IRGC and QF (Iran) as terrorist orgs partially because they supply the Houthis with arms. Biden's admin has not reversed that yet. We will have to see what new Sec State Blinken does. What we do with Iran is far more important than specifically the Houthis. Iran sees itself as a major world power and wants to be treated as such. The question is where on the 3-axis spectrum of sanctions / military posturing / diplomacy we should be. In my opinion we need to get tougher.
This links below provide some interesting analysis:
https://www.aei.org/op-eds/biden-is-hoping-to-deal-with-an-iran-that-doesnt-exist/
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/02/05/biden-nuclear-iran-foreign-policy-466120
-
On 2/6/2021 at 6:42 AM, brabus said:
The irony is for the amount of black people you’ve talked to who support your viewpoint, I have 7 (yes I’ve counted when I thought about it) black friends who do not share your viewpoint (and 3 of them came to this country on a raft as a child...so no, they’re not from a “privileged” family). They are along the thought process espoused earlier in this thread that historical treatment and past laws have been terrible/discriminatory, and there are absolutely things to address and make better today, but there is not a systemic, nation-wide, far-reaching (or whatever other adjective you want to use) problem of racism. It is real and they want it gone, but it is so wildly blown out of proportion when attached to words like “systemic” and the focus of those who are well intentioned is significantly misguided.
So consider this, or just throw it away because it’s counter to the narrative, but I hope you guys don’t, because it’s certainly a perspective that needs to be considered so we can move forward in the most positive direction, without being misguided so strongly by bullshit spewed by the media and politicians.
Thanks for sharing what you've learned. It doesn't match my insights, but that's fine. There is BS on both sides. Gone are the days of the solely-"liberal mainstream media". Mainstream media now has two components: The MSNBC/CNN/NYT side and the Fox/OAN/talk radio side. Both have large viewer/readerships.
With regard to: "...there are absolutely things to address and make better today..." What are those things? How should they be addressed and made better today?
-
2 hours ago, ViperMan said:
So the responses proffered were "go re-read this forum," a tangential "his lot in life depends on this belief so he won't understand," "go talk to a black person," and most recently, changing the subject to "black people were historically discriminated against in this country." Hmmm? And I'm the person not wanting to have a conversation about this? Pfffffft. Scoff.
Each of those responses is a prototype for avoiding something that challenges a closely held belief. Note, I don't deny that blacks were historically discriminated against in this country and that those policies have effects to this day (today). But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about rioting and policing being unfair in this country. I provided data that (to me) fully explains why policing appears disproportionate. That doesn't square with some dogma, but it can't be addressed directly because it doesn't fit into an acceptable narrative, so we get the four side-steps outlined above.
Let me offer this: there is middle ground out there, but if you're going to find it, you have to accept what's real. We can agree that blacks have been treated horribly historically in this country and that something needs to be done to wrench this community (and others) out of the death spiral it seems to be in. You won't find middle ground with people "on the other side" whilst denying obvious realities and pinning the tail on whatever donkey you've been told is responsible. The cops aren't your scapegoat. The greatest irony in all this "BLM" nonsense from the summer was that the police are the greatest actual BLM organization out there - but of course they're the ones painted as the villains.
How is "go talk to a black person" who experiences issues "avoiding something"? Data collection is an essential component of problem analysis. I'm not suggesting everything you hear will be fact or even relevant. However, it is intellectually fragile ground to make claims about someone's position without at least speaking with them.
That said, maybe you have done so. If that is the case, I'm interested in what you heard. Were any of your opinions challenged?
-
15 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:
Bias and racism are not synonyms. If you are a police officer and the overwhelming balance of interactions you have with criminals are of a certain skin color, as a human you are going to develop a bias. That does not make you racist. We know this because minority police are subject to the exact same bias. Remember how stupid we all thought it was when TSA was patting down elderly white women in wheelchairs?
This is a problem to be solved, but any solution is immediately precluded by calling the participants evil, which racism very much is.
I think well meaning liberals gravitate towards this narrative because it is a much easier solution. With racism, you just go after the racists. People and policy, find and destroy. But the real solution is probably going to involve the breakdown of the black family unit, and the incarceration of young black men for decades. Nothing about that is going to be quick or easy. Or cheap.
Affirmative action in colleges is another example of this phenomenon. The easy answer was to just twist the numbers to get more black people in college. But in many ways black people have paid the price of that ill-conceived solution. The real answer was always to fix black education at the elementary school level, and work up from there. But the results from that never would not be seen for decades, whereas changing college admissions only takes four years to yield hypothetical results.
Perception is not reality, but it guides how we act. The more we scream about systemic racism, despite the hard evidence, the more people will believe it. I find it almost amusing how each side sees the riots of the other side as inconceivable. I don't. I think the riots were unjustified and certainly immoral based on that, but I'm not surprised that they happened. a bunch of well-meaning citizens made the foolish mistake of taking what their politicians and media figures said as truth. What would you do if you legitimately believed that our democratic election process was being stolen from us? I hope that you would have your guns ready and march on the capitol. Likewise if you believed that the police were intentionally killing scores of black people without cause, based only on the fact that they were black, I would hope that you would take to the streets. I would.
Bias and racism are synonyms, at least according to this reference:
https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/racist
More precisely, racism (per contemporary usage) is on the extreme right side of a specific type of bias ("racial bias") "Right" in this context is based on conventional data presentation, not politics. There can be and are racists on the political left.
Improving policing definitely requires multivariate analysis. Nevertheless, racism (or behavior/actions along the racial bias spectrum) is a significant factor that must be addressed. Having friends and family in law enforcement, I am sympathetic to the many hats they must wear over the course of a shift and throughout a career. That and their overall lack of ongoing training. Think of the training prior to a deployment. Or the typical ratio of flight planning to time in the air. Police get nowhere near enough of that. They need more funding, not less. However (and its a big however) regardless of that police have to behave in a way that earns and keeps the public's trust. If you have one police officer who is violent due to racial bias and 99 others who keep quiet about it, you've got 100 bad cops in the eyes of the targeted minority community (or 20 who harass, 60 who remain silent, etc. etc.) I spent some time as a youth in NYC and observed such violence first hand with family who is much darker complexioned than me but engaging in the same mischievous behavior. Unfortunately, I couldn't record it at the time since I didn't have a shoulder-mounted VHS camera.
Calling out racism a la BLM does not mean you are ignoring other variables or automatically painting a given group as evil. There is a concern about and attention paid to black crime (Stop the Violence and Parishoners on Patrol). As a side note, I don't endorse the bizarre BLM positions on their website regarding socialism and nuclear families.
Affirmative Action is a completely different animal which I agree has been poorly implemented and resulted in massive backlash. True equality of opportunity (as opposed to forcing an easily measured statistical outcome) is difficult to achieve because it is complex and results can only be determined over a long time scale; i.e. longer than the typical political term or attention span. No one I'm aware of is suggesting a poof! magic wand solution to police racial bias.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, ViperMan said:
I'm curious. What exactly is "social equality"? What does it look like? I like equality.
I grew up as a white kid in the American southwest. Middle class parents taught me how to interact with the police. Be polite. Don't argue. Don't resist arrest. Don't grab cops' tazer/gun/other weapons. Don't make a cop fear for his life. Just the basics, you know?
In regards to high-profile deaths of black people, in almost all cases (with the exception of Freddie Gray), they have been misrepresented, misconstrued, or otherwise shaped/framed in order to produce talking points and support the narrative that says blacks are systematically mistreated in the US. That is a fiction.
What data? Data showing that different racial groups produce crime at different rates? The riots this summer were because of COVID. They would not have happened without a global pandemic that gave people nothing but time to think of something to be angry about. Cue the media and some sweet, sweet, narrative to push an agenda.
Black crime affects the USA disproportionately. I agree that default police interaction and policing methods could broadly be made better in this country, but the notion that there is a disproportionate amount of policing affecting blacks in this country is unattached to reality.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2
Looking at pure data, in 2017 blacks committed more absolute murders than whites (5,660 > 5,070). If the proportion of the two races was about equal, that would make sense. So, if we're going for "equity", which of those black murders should we let go in order to bring it into balance with the white murder rate? Or, which white people should be charged with murders they didn't commit in order to bring it into balance? I don't see an alternative outcome given the left's current position.
The fact that a much smaller minority is able to account for a disproportionate amount of violent crime in this country does say something - trouble is, it doesn't say there is systematic police discrimination. What it says, in actuality, is that blacks are committing murder at about 7x the rate of whites.
Now, given that, what is the solution to the appearance of over-policing? I don't know, but I'm open to novel solutions.
I suggest talking to a black person (or better, people) who disagrees with your position above. It might be enlightening.
However, for arguments sake, let's just assume you're correct in that police interaction is not biased again black people. Then why is the African-American community complaining so much? What is your explanation?
-
7 hours ago, ViperMan said:
Recovering back to the typical (aka "normal") situation is going to take time because things have become so screwed up. We've turned back in the direction of normal (with all of it's pros and cons) by reverting back to (somewhat) how politics operated pre-Trump. However, it's an analog, not digital, system.
-
9 minutes ago, ViperMan said:
Oh, we're back to normal?!? Sweet, I hadn't heard!
I said politics as usual. Normal is going to awhile, if ever.
-
2 hours ago, 17D_guy said:
This was a WILD ride -
I don't know how much of it is true. It was echoed in the other news outlets.
Apparently there's a whole series, and podcasts.
https://www.axios.com/off-the-rails-episodes-cf6da824-83ac-45a6-a33c-ed8b00094e39.htmlCatching up here. The reason for my Biden vote: If I exhibited 25% of Trump's behaviors I'd be fired, divorced, and on trial. And that's how it should be. Character matters. That's what any decent parent works hard to teach their kids. It certainly mattered to many conservatives when Clinton got a BJ in the White House and fibbed about it.
Most of Trump's purported accomplishments aren't. I mentioned previously that the slopes of the major stock indices have been relatively consistent since 2011. Job creation the last three years of Obama was higher (8.1m) than the first three years of Trump (6.7m - and that's NOT including the pandemic, thus giving Trump the benefit of the doubt). Income growth was lower as well. GDP growth (again not including the pandemic) averaged 2.4% under Obama and 2.5% under Trump. Trump did not save us from the 'terrible Obama economy'. The numbers are clear, yet a significant portion of the right still believes Trump's rhetoric.
Forbes, hardly a liberal publication, provided a nice summary:
SCOTUS picks were not an accomplishment showcasing deft leadership. Openings occurred and were filled by candidates that reflected the administration's priorities. Same as it ever was.
A linear regression shows that crime has been steadily decreasing for decades. There was not a surge under Obama nor an atypical improvement with Trump.
Don't get me started on the "Jesus gave us Trump" shtick.
I do acknowledge that African-American unemployment dropped to historic lows under Trump, and that is a good thing. However, I suggest speaking to members of that community regarding their overall opinions about the last four years.
That said, I am by no means an enthusiastic Biden supporter. This election was a reset to politics as usual. Given the dumpster fire / shit show / shenangians / tomfoolery / fiasco / calamity / goat rope over the last four years, that is a good thing for now. We will get some relative stability. I'm confident that Biden supporters, even the extreme factions, will not attempt to stop government by force after being incited by lies. So there's that.
I am still optimistic that a behaviorally-mature, patriotic, unifying non-career-politician candidate will rise to the occasion. Maybe someone under 60 with broad experience/education, military service and actual maturity who is not from the career political class. But we don't have that someone yet.
-
3
-
-
On 1/30/2021 at 4:49 PM, slackline said:
"That's the way we've always done it" were some of the only words that ever made me get angry with any of my peeps. People constantly bemoan change until gradually that change becomes the norm, and hence, the "way we've always done it". I used to ask anyone who told me that if there was nothing we could do better, why do things still suck in their ops/training/etc?
Totally agree. “...the way we’ve always done it” is never a good answer. A Special Tactics guy I’ve kept in touch with called such thinking death of the soul. There are always TTPs, but they must be justifiable and logical.
-
1
-
-
On 1/30/2021 at 5:49 PM, ClearedHot said:
Seriously? So you are saying Jen Psaki is pure as the driven snow and she doesn't lie. Come on man!
Psaki outright lied as State Department Spokesperson.
Conway and Spice were horrible, I liked Huckabee, she gave what she got...Post Spicer that press room was radioactive and combative from the first day she walked to the podium. The point of the post was they are sticking to a script and if it isn't on the script they don't know what to do. She is the White House Press Secretary, she should do better than fumble through a book for a scripted answer and when she can't find it "circle back."
For the record, during my career "I don't know" was usually an acceptable answer especially during my time at the WIC if it was followed up with, but I know how to find the answer. It was not an acceptable answer on a checkride if we were talking ops limits, it was not an acceptable answer in a TIC if I asked where the friendlies were, and it was not acceptable the night my wife was driving our family to dinner off base and a young asshat Airman was driving so crazy he ran us off the road and into a field.
Quick story...For two miles this chump tried to pass us in heavy traffic and nearly clipped the back of our SUV both times. My wife is not a slow driver and we were doing 60 in a 55, and he was still about a foot off our bumper trying to pass. He tried twice to pass and almost clipped us each time as he jumped back in line. When he finally did pass there was oncoming traffic and not enough room. He was was about dead even with us and my wife had to swerve off the road and into a field to avoid a head on collision, he kept on going. We got back on the road and wouldn't you know it he got caught at the long traffic light so we caught up to him. I had consumed a few adult beverages at the club and figured it best not to confront someone offbase so I wrote down his tag and called the Mission Support Group Commander to have the SPs run the tag (dude looked military). Wouldn't you know it came back to Airman Snuffy from Mx Sq... he was standing in my office at 0700 on Monday with his Sq/CC and Grp/CC. I asked him what were you thinking..."I don't know?" Did you think about stopping when you ran my wife, my son and my off the road and into that field...."I don't know..." That was his answer to everything. Only time I ever really went off on someone for "I don't know."
She’s not impressive in that role, which requires one to think on her feet.
Two observations:- Blitzer did a decent job pressing her to provide a clear answer. CNN leans left, but I’m glad to observe at least one reporter trying to be objective. I can’t recall Fox doing the same with Trump’s press folks.
- With regard to the aggressive driver; I hope your family was not harmed. It is fortunate that you had recourse due to the somewhat unique circumstances That’s just a standard day on the road in Boston. It is remarkable we don’t have rampant road rage up here.-
1
-
-
On 1/28/2021 at 2:53 PM, Lord Ratner said:
Not sure what you listen to, because Shapiro was all over the riots at the Capitol. I suspect what you're really looking for is someone on the right to criticize the right in the same way that someone on the left would, but that's a silly expectation. Conservatives can only be compared to other conservatives, in this case, and when you compare someone like Shapiro or Weinstein to, say, Fox news, the difference is obvious.
It's not like Trump has some sort of endless laundry list of problems. He's immoral in his personal life, uneducated on the issues, bad with his hiring decisions in many cases, and a terrible communicator to most of the electorate. I listen to Shapiro go off on those regularly.
And there's zero comparison between the right and left insofar as defending their extremists. Democratic politicians tied themselves in knots doing everything in their power to minimize criticism of antifa and rioters over the summer. I've seen no such reluctance on the right to criticize white supremacists and rioters on the 6th.
But part of this is that if you think government is the solution to many of our problems (leftist), you're going to find fault in any conservative message, and conservatives are going to seem very similar to you. Same goes for the right.
Other than a couple of perfunctory comments, I have not observed Shapiro as ‘all over the riots’. If you have examples, please share. I listen to a wide range of podcasts, primarily because topics are explored in far more depth than current, conventional mass-consumption media.
Can you provide an example of someone on the right who critically examines their own side in the manner of Tulsi?
-
12 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:
The average investor is at such a disadvantage...especially when the ruling class is all in on it.
Don't want to read the article...summary - The Pelosis bought Tesla call options right before Biden announced the entire government fleet was going to switch to EV.
Yes. Congress is the only place you can make $174k yet become a multimillionaire.
-
1 hour ago, FLEA said:
Well, I guess you have a problem with AOC supporting riots to murder cops this summer right? Remember when she said riots should make people feel uncomfortable? Or are we being disingenuous? I actually have a lot of respect for AOC but this was a missed oppurtunity for her. Nothing about her comment is bipartisan, it's actually quite polarizing. She should have taken the higher road on this one.
Basically, she just jeapordized the chances of this movement to have meaningful change for the average person by risking politicizing the issue; because she can't get over her own political ego. Unsat.
It was nice to see AOC and Cruz with some backbone during the GameStop events, even if opportunistic. AOC is like a whiny, if bright, teenager who reads Mother Jones but has no idea how the world works. I don’t agree with 75% of what she says but I do think she means well, sort of like a young Bernie.
-
1 hour ago, pawnman said:
But that's just it. GameStop is poised to dramatically change their business model. The inciting incident was Ryan Cohen buying a ~12% share and taking over the board. This is a guy who has extensive experience in building an online store. And he's appointed Nintendo's Reggie Fils-Aime to the board of directors.
Do I think that makes GameStop worth $300+ a share? Probably not. But it was likely worth a lot more than Melvin Capital was driving towards.
I’ve been in the tech and retail electronics world for quite some time post USAF/ANG. GameStop will die. Beyond their phony baloney four pillar recovery plan, the basic dynamic is this: Gaming is a business with the least to gain from a retail presence. Over 50% and growing game purchases are digital. This will continue beyond the pandemic. When even consumer electronics companies that make products with a significant tactile aspect (e. g. Bose) are closing stores, the writing is on the wall. Without retail, GameStop really has nothing unique to offer customers as an independent enterprise. Their online capability is lacking innovation and substance. My read is that Microsoft really partnered with them to harvest their marketing capability, use them as a separate entity to grow dedicated online infrastructure, and eventually mitigate their taxes via assuming debt via absorption. I have to say, I chuckled at the press release info about providing retail personnel with customized Surfaces to enhance the purchase experience. Basically trying to do what Apple did 10 yrs ago.
That said, I love the fact that the average investor beat the big wigs at their own game. Pure capitalism, not crony capitalism . -
18 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:
Not sure what you listen to, because Shapiro was all over the riots at the Capitol. I suspect what you're really looking for is someone on the right to criticize the right in the same way that someone on the left would, but that's a silly expectation. Conservatives can only be compared to other conservatives, in this case, and when you compare someone like Shapiro or Weinstein to, say, Fox news, the difference is obvious.
It's not like Trump has some sort of endless laundry list of problems. He's immoral and his personal life, uneducated on the issues, bad with his hiring decisions in many cases, and a terrible communicator to most of the electorate. I listen to Shapiro go off on those regularly.
And there's zero comparison between the right and left insofar as defending their extremists. Democratic politicians tied themselves in knots doing everything in their power to minimize criticism of antifa and rioters over the summer. I've seen no such reluctance on the right to criticize White supremacists and writers on the 6th.
But part of this is that if you think government is the solution to many of our problems (leftist), you're going to find fault in any conservative message, and conservatives are going to seem very similar to you. Same goes for the right.
Here’s an example of a Ben Shapiro comment regarding the Jan 6th riots that I recommend you read: https://www.foxnews.com/media/ben-shapiro-capitol-riot-joe-biden-divisive-reaction.amp
Essentially, he is dismissing the rioters’ actions and focusing on what he sees as Biden’s reaction. Shapiro said, "...you can be an insane person and suggest this has something to do with systemic American racism. Naturally, Joe Biden is going to do the latter."
When you have rioters with “Camp Auschwitz” shirts and carrying Confederate battle flags (I don’t buy the ‘heritage not hate’ stuff), yeah, racism is a major factor that Shapiro is inexplicably ignoring. That he is proudly Jewish makes this very unusual other than he will defend his side no matter what.There is certainly hypocrisy on both sides. The basic shtick is, “X might be bad, BUT what’s really the problem is Y, yada, yada.” ‘X’ is their own side’s quickly-dismissed questionable position and ‘Y’ the opposite position, which is lambasted at length. In contrast, you’ll observe democrats like Tulsi and (self-declared) liberals like Weinstein taking the opposite approach by truly delving into the shortcomings on their own side. This broadens the discussion and can lead to common ground. However, I have not observed any conservatives doing the same.
Feel free to share specific examples to the contrary. I’m not insulting your knowledge or intelligence. I welcome the discussion. -
52 minutes ago, FLEA said:
Quick collection of some of the best celebrity/politician/capitalist social media post about this:
Wow. Makes Ja Rule’s Fyre festival disaster look like nothing.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, slackline said:
My buddy (big whig in the finance world) was telling me there's quite a few people in this little game that are going to have charges laid against them. Lots of 401Ks tanked for this, i.e., a lot of little people are going to hurt a lot more than the caught with their pants down hedge fund managers. I don't agree with some things happening on Wall Street, but usually what they do is backed by sound reasoning, not "Hey, let's screw Wall Street and pump fake value into this failing business model!"
Perhaps, but not so sure about the last part. The 2004 to 2008 CDO / subprime debacle pumped a lot of fake value into the previously solid and stable MBS market.
-
2 hours ago, FLEA said:
Companies can always change strategies though; but that takes investment. Remember, Amazon was a book store once.
Yes, although it would be a bit like a horse carriage company transitioning to automobiles.....in 1965.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, ClearedHot said:
I start with investments, I've built wealth and want to protect it. I had three numbers when I first started. The first number was the lowest number I needed to retire, we could be careful, manage our spending and cover our expenses no issues. We hit that many years ago. The second number was living at our current quality of life now but not having to work. I have raised that number over the years as we have raised our standard of living, we keep acquiring toys and some of them (airplane/RV), are expensive. I have a very nice retirement as a 26 year O-6, my wife works and makes a great salary, I work and am over compensated for my capability, we also have a side business that brings in about $10,000 a month in passive income. I won't into specific numbers but I am forced to make quarterly tax payments of $15,000 in addition to our withholding and still have to make a huge tax payment every April...I know tough problem to have. We hit the second number several years ago. My third number was to be stupid rich and I never really thought it possible, but it is. Sorry for the long section on investments but I grew up poor and it really shaped me. The rest of the reading is loosely related because all of these policies and actions by the different political parties really impact where I put my money.
I use Morgan Stanley as my wealth manager and they have a host of products I sort through each morning.
CNBC has a great pre-market snapshot which also links to great articles about trends and emerging opportunities.
The Motley Fool has a nice daily summary, but also has a lot of fluff and hidden advertisements.
I also use Market Watch which is a great tool to get down in the weeds of investing should you so choose.
I used to have a bridge between investments and the news and would read daily articles in the Economist, but they completely jumped the shark in the last two years and went full retard political which is truly sad because they have some great analysts.
Around 0600 the Early Bird hits my email, it used to be so much better but still provides a summary of the previous day and the overnight actions in the defense industry. You can sign up, it is free.
Next I look at BBC, like most they are biased but they also provide a world view. I think taking a few minutes to see how the rest of the world views us is very important.
Keeping the previous theme in mind next I go to Al Jazeera which has excellent coverage on some things.
Most days I cycle in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal.
I work most of the day and that requires other reading, some of it technical, most of it more strategic. As part of my job I spend an inordinate amount of time looking at the Federal budget. While not a lobbyist, for several years I have been going to the hill as an expert on a few key areas and technologies.
During the week I cycle through Foxnews/CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC for an update, while we make dinner.
My son is very active in sports so while he is practicing most nights I tend to read to pass the time. I have about 10 books going right now, a great one written by a good friend called When The Tempest Gathers I am purposely reading the book slowly and a bit at a time. Last week I finished Oliver North's new book The Rifleman, Admiral McRaven's book Sea Stories: My Life in Special Operations and Rum Curious which is a great book about the origins of Rum and a tasting guide which I found very useful...I also learned some things about the rum market and actually changed an investment because of it.
This week I started a re-read of the classic The Odyssey by Homer. The classics are important and were used to frame the thinking of the founders of our country.
Impressive
-
Just now, Swamp Yankee said:
Apparently unity is possible, at least at 1:23pm EST on 1/28/2021. We’ll see how long it lasts.
1823 Zulu
-
8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:24 minutes ago, pawnman said:Ted Cruz is on Twitter agreeing with AOC.
Who would have thought that GameStop would have been the force that finally brings unity to politics?As much as I despise Tucker Carlson, he's also essentially agreeing with AOC as well.
Apparently unity is possible, at least at 1:23pm EST on 1/28/2021. We’ll see how long it lasts.
The Next President is...
in Squadron Bar
Posted
Agreed.
"There were no tanks rolling on the capitol, no politicians arrested, no process undone. Congress was back in session in a matter of hours."
As homestar noted, these things are indicative of being over the edge, to keep our vernacular consistent. That in mind, what are other indications of imminent chaos? What would have actually concerned you?