Could Kamala and those around Biden be charged with fraud? They all knew his cognitive faculties had diminished incredibly and to trot him out there to act as the president was incredibly irresponsible on their behalf.
I should not have posted this here but instead in the soon-to-be short-lived Kamala thread. My apologies.
Sure you should have. Just because your political views are in the thread minority you shouldn’t face arbitrary censorship.
I should not have posted this here but instead in the soon-to-be short-lived Kamala thread. My apologies.
Sure you should have. Just because your political views are in the thread minority you shouldn’t face arbitrary censorship.
We have been pretty successful in keeping politics out of this thread. We should strive to keep it that way. I have no idea of how most of the posters here even lean politically.
Sure you should have. Just because your political views are in the thread minority you shouldn’t face arbitrary censorship.
We have been pretty successful in keeping politics out of this thread. We should strive to keep it that way. I have no idea of how most of the posters here even lean politically.
You are going to have a hard time doing that when the Government is the largest employer and spender. Good luck.
I think this view about financial solvency and generational wealth may be true for some, but does not represent a major portion of Americans, and I think it is unfair to pretend that it does.
1) Choosing to set up one's descendants for life is basically choosing to destroy their lives. The number of people who go on to live happy, productive lives after inheriting "generational wealth" is dwarfed by the number of people who live miserable, unproductive lives with such an inheritance.
2) While any given individual could earn, save and invest in such a way as to leave heirs with generational wealth, collectively this is not possible. Money is only a placeholder. It allows one to buy goods and services. The total goods and services available will not increase simply because everyone has this generational wealth. And whatever goods and services are available will only be available because people are working to make them so - not because we are all sitting on "generational wealth."
Sounds like two excuses you've made for yourself not to invest as you should have.
1) Choosing to set up one's descendants for life is basically choosing to destroy their lives. The number of people who go on to live happy, productive lives after inheriting "generational wealth" is dwarfed by the number of people who live miserable, unproductive lives with such an inheritance.
2) While any given individual could earn, save and invest in such a way as to leave heirs with generational wealth, collectively this is not possible. Money is only a placeholder. It allows one to buy goods and services. The total goods and services available will not increase simply because everyone has this generational wealth. And whatever goods and services are available will only be available because people are working to make them so - not because we are all sitting on "generational wealth."
Sounds like two excuses you've made for yourself not to invest as you should have.
I believe you may be missing his point, which to simplify, is that wealth is not an end in and of itself. It's a means to an end, not an end in iteself, especially when that end might yield undesirable outcomes.
FWIW, the money part of this investing thing is the least interesting part of the whole thing.
Sounds like two excuses you've made for yourself not to invest as you should have.
I believe you may be missing his point, which to simplify, is that wealth is not an end in and of itself. It's a means to an end, not an end in iteself, especially when that end might yield undesirable outcomes.
FWIW, the money part of this investing thing is the least interesting part of the whole thing.
Not missing his point at all. In point #1, he comes up with an out of thin air stat, showing his disdain for people who invested as they should have while he didn't, and in point #2, he's bringing up a ridiculous scenario where EVERYONE properly invests as they should for their retirement and to pass money on to heirs, and because he says that would not be good, he has decided not to invest as he should so that he's wealthy and can pass money on to heirs. There will never be a time in human history where everyone invests as they should, so if a person DECIDES to do so, this strawman scenario will not exist and therefore have no impact.
If you make a ton of money and don't want to give it to your children because you think it will turn then into degenerates, you can always give it all away. I say that's a d!ck move...better to set up a trust that they can get when they turn 40 or whatever age you decide. I, personally, don't intend to use money as a weapon, so whatever my wife and I have when we die will go to my children without conditions.
1) Choosing to set up one's descendants for life is basically choosing to destroy their lives. The number of people who go on to live happy, productive lives after inheriting "generational wealth" is dwarfed by the number of people who live miserable, unproductive lives with such an inheritance.
2) While any given individual could earn, save and invest in such a way as to leave heirs with generational wealth, collectively this is not possible. Money is only a placeholder. It allows one to buy goods and services. The total goods and services available will not increase simply because everyone has this generational wealth. And whatever goods and services are available will only be available because people are working to make them so - not because we are all sitting on "generational wealth."
Sounds like two excuses you've made for yourself not to invest as you should have.
Sounds like you have the IQ of a newt.
I have invested well and have more money than I will ever need. I was able to retire after 12 years of full time work due to making a whole lot more than you'll ever make and investing a whole lot better.
Also unlike you, I would never inflict my wealth on the next generation. They will be a lot better off making their own way. And the organizations that I leave my money to and those they serve will be better off as well.
Sounds like two excuses you've made for yourself not to invest as you should have.
Sounds like you have the IQ of a newt.
I have invested well and have more money than I will ever need. I was able to retire after 12 years of full time work due to making a whole lot more than you'll ever make and investing a whole lot better.
Also unlike you, I would never inflict my wealth on the next generation. They will be a lot better off making their own way. And the organizations that I leave my money to and those they serve will be better off as well.
Not missing his point at all. In point #1, he comes up with an out of thin air stat, showing his disdain for people who invested as they should have while he didn't, and in point #2, he's bringing up a ridiculous scenario where EVERYONE properly invests as they should for their retirement and to pass money on to heirs, and because he says that would not be good, he has decided not to invest as he should so that he's wealthy and can pass money on to heirs. There will never be a time in human history where everyone invests as they should, so if a person DECIDES to do so, this strawman scenario will not exist and therefore have no impact.
If you make a ton of money and don't want to give it to your children because you think it will turn then into degenerates, you can always give it all away. I say that's a d!ck move...better to set up a trust that they can get when they turn 40 or whatever age you decide. I, personally, don't intend to use money as a weapon, so whatever my wife and I have when we die will go to my children without conditions.
I find it mildly amusing that you use the term, "out of thin air" to describe my "disdain" (which you created out of thin air) and "while (I) didn't (invest as I should have)" (again, made up out of thin air by you).
Now I will use the term disdain properly, as God intended. I have utter disdain for you in making up pure nonsense out of thin air and trying to ascribe it to me. I also have utter disdain for your inferior intellect. You are also rather ugly, though I try not to hold that against you.
Not missing his point at all. In point #1, he comes up with an out of thin air stat, showing his disdain for people who invested as they should have while he didn't, and in point #2, he's bringing up a ridiculous scenario where EVERYONE properly invests as they should for their retirement and to pass money on to heirs, and because he says that would not be good, he has decided not to invest as he should so that he's wealthy and can pass money on to heirs. There will never be a time in human history where everyone invests as they should, so if a person DECIDES to do so, this strawman scenario will not exist and therefore have no impact.
If you make a ton of money and don't want to give it to your children because you think it will turn then into degenerates, you can always give it all away. I say that's a d!ck move...better to set up a trust that they can get when they turn 40 or whatever age you decide. I, personally, don't intend to use money as a weapon, so whatever my wife and I have when we die will go to my children without conditions.
I find it mildly amusing that you use the term, "out of thin air" to describe my "disdain" (which you created out of thin air) and "while (I) didn't (invest as I should have)" (again, made up out of thin air by you).
Now I will use the term disdain properly, as God intended. I have utter disdain for you in making up pure nonsense out of thin air and trying to ascribe it to me. I also have utter disdain for your inferior intellect. You are also rather ugly, though I try not to hold that against you.
Truly remarkable. The gap is probably even wider now. The USA seems to have built something different and stronger than the rest of the world.
Or for the glass half empty people....the US has to decline a lot to match up with the rest of the world.
Charlie Bilello @charliebilello US stocks have been outperforming international stocks for 15 years running, and by a huge margin. The result: we're now more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean in terms of historical US outperformance.
AI stocks up only 2% since this tweet...maybe the period of mad growth is slowing indeed.
yoni rechtman @yrechtman In the last few weeks Goldman, Sequoia, and Barclays have all put out equity research that says “the AI capex boom doesn’t make sense”. That feels like a pretty significant harbinger of a major sentiment shift. 8:27 AM · Jul 6, 2024 · 988.3K Views
AI stocks up only 2% since this tweet...maybe the period of mad growth is slowing indeed.
yoni rechtman @yrechtman In the last few weeks Goldman, Sequoia, and Barclays have all put out equity research that says “the AI capex boom doesn’t make sense”. That feels like a pretty significant harbinger of a major sentiment shift. 8:27 AM · Jul 6, 2024 · 988.3K Views
NVDA was $125.83 on July 5 and is $139.77 as of 10:45 this morning. I think they're the best AI-related company as their chips are just a superior product, even with the recent news of their Blackwell ones sometimes overheating.
Truly remarkable. The gap is probably even wider now. The USA seems to have built something different and stronger than the rest of the world.
Or for the glass half empty people....the US has to decline a lot to match up with the rest of the world.
Charlie Bilello @charliebilello US stocks have been outperforming international stocks for 15 years running, and by a huge margin. The result: we're now more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean in terms of historical US outperformance.
Truly remarkable. The gap is probably even wider now. The USA seems to have built something different and stronger than the rest of the world.
Or for the glass half empty people....the US has to decline a lot to match up with the rest of the world.
Charlie Bilello @charliebilello US stocks have been outperforming international stocks for 15 years running, and by a huge margin. The result: we're now more than 2.5 standard deviations above the mean in terms of historical US outperformance.
Given the stronger U.S. dollar in recent months, are S&P 500 companies with more international revenue exposure reporting lower (year-over-year) earnings and revenues for Q3 compared to S&P 500 companies with more domestic re...
I think this view about financial solvency and generational wealth may be true for some, but does not represent a major portion of Americans, and I think it is unfair to pretend that it does.
1) Choosing to set up one's descendants for life is basically choosing to destroy their lives. The number of people who go on to live happy, productive lives after inheriting "generational wealth" is dwarfed by the number of people who live miserable, unproductive lives with such an inheritance.
2) While any given individual could earn, save and invest in such a way as to leave heirs with generational wealth, collectively this is not possible. Money is only a placeholder. It allows one to buy goods and services. The total goods and services available will not increase simply because everyone has this generational wealth. And whatever goods and services are available will only be available because people are working to make them so - not because we are all sitting on "generational wealth."
I'd like to dig a little deeper into your second statement if I may.
I think one aspect of stock ownership may be overlooked in that viewpoint. And that would be the fact that owning shares of a stock does also benefit the economy, and that would be through the stock holders facilitating the growth of the company represented in the underlying investment by issueing new shares on the market. And of course, growth of the companies creates jobs, generates tax revenues, and insights innovation.
I find your point that money is not an end in itself to be well taken and I appreciate that, but I think their is a part being played by shareholders in the business cycle of publically traded companies.
