fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You’re lawyering here, by pointing to formal powers. If farmers or postmen were ‘unequivocally opposed’ to a government decision, I would expect to at least hear about it, despite them not having the formal power to overturn anything. Lawyers, as one of the priestly classes of civil society , possess far more power, prestige and verbal ability, yet nothing was heard from them. And the highest courts, their elite, those who actually did something instead of sending a memo in a technical journal, were completely on board with the program.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Both.
Are you arguing that lawyers were not opposed to the corona regulations
How do you explain the courts siding with the state every time, otherwise? And the silence.
the lawyers opposed to the decision had a moral duty to make themselves heard more?
Definitely.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I don’t see why the judicial branch should have any formal power at all if they’re just going to do what the executive says every time, to pay for the mortgage. Their job isn’t to sell an ‘officially legally approved’ stamp to their biggest benefactor. That is simony.
Your defense of lawyers’ integrity consists of asking for more money. Presumably people who care about the constitution should have bribed the bundesverfassungsgericht to get their desired result, since according to you, that's what the state did. The lawyer jokes write themselves.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I think if I do something wrong, I think, I just try and make it right. I don’t bring God into that picture. I don’t.
He was just rendering onto Trump the things that are Trump's.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Let me get this straight: Managers want to make equity returns with bond risks. Banks come up with a miracle product that promises just that. They both profit for a few years. Then of course it all goes tits up, and the state 'has no choice' but to bail them out again. They're not illiquid, they're stupid or reckless.
You could say the banks delivered exactly what they promised. Only there was a secret ingredient, the fool who magically takes the risk away from them for free.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You mean it’s a legit government subvention of pension funds in the form of an unofficial put, and everyone knows but don’t say. So you agree the claims of illiquidity and 'no choice' are bunk, missing the forest for the trees.
I have a few objections:
Moral hazard: encourages risk-seeking behaviour, causing greater problems than anticipated, currency crisis etc. The best thing for them would be to flip for the money repeatedly, get the most out of that put.
Leakage: the most reckless banks and managers take a larger cut of the profits in good years, sucking up the subvention.
Lack of transparency/uncertainty: Taxpayers are unaware the subvention was in place until the crash. Since it’s an unofficial guarantee, Market participants can never be sure of the bailout, leading to uncertainty and malinvestment .
Unfairness: The simple and honest worker-investor who decided to accept the risk of equities for his pension, did everything right, saw through the lies of bankers, doesn't cause systemic risk, has a cheap pension fund. As a reward, he is outcompeted by this chimera of governement subventions and banks.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Bart Simpson T-shirt
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
If my friend acts as a lender of last resort every time I am in danger of getting margin called, that is a valuable service, worth money, even though no money needs to be transferred from his account to mine.
Illiquidity is a red herring, a euphemism for the fact that the yield of those gilts is lower than it should be, propped up by overleverage. Bond yields are rising everywhere. Which is a problem, since they've successfully "hedged" themselves against falling interest rates by making themselves vulnerable to rising interest rates through leverage. Now they're getting margin called, and the state has bought bonds above market rate to keep the charade going, rather than liquidate their positions to let the market find the true, higher, yield.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
What if Texas kicks your butt? Spheres of influence are backed by power. Russia is not a peer to the US like China is, not even a peer to the EU. If the US claim to a sphere of influence that far from home doesn't resonate with you, europe has that claim by proximity and power.
As to predictable consequences, maidan started when yanukovich turned away from a EU treaty. Russia shouldn't have messed with the EU's interests in the region if they can’t back it with a functioning military, diplomatic influence and economic resilience. With the weaknesses now laid bare, they never should have pretended to a sphere of influence in the first place.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Others... can be brought to heel by conventional means.... Allied nations, especially NATO members, can be trivially placated by nuclear sharing
If the taboo is broken, I don’t think most non-nuclear western nations will be satisfied with an american standing between them and the button anymore. As the nuclear doctrines tell us, when the survival of the state is at stake, you don’t want to rely on the goodwill of a foreigner, you’re not borrowing a toothbrush here. It was quite generous and trusting of them to abstain so far. They’ll all nuclearize together, like a big happy family, along with large neutrals, and the americans can’t sanction them all.
Who knows, it may even be less dangerous than the alliance configuration, MAD works, right? We'll have even more mad peace! And if not, that way we’ll only lose chunks of humanity two nations at the time instead of two continents.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Where did you get that idea? Not organic, it's all us, ukrainians have no agency, democracy is a charade, and sovereign states are not bound by morals. Didn't want a coup, shouldn't have torpedoed our trade agreement, action-reaction. Great game stuff. We out-coup'd them, out-fought them, so it's our colony, end of story.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You're leaving out the most culture war relevant part of the story, how this policy came to be. The turkey deal only happened after the crisis.
On one side, you have the blank statists, who thought it would be a good idea (they weren't confused) to import millions of MENA people . On the other, the far right and eastern europeans, who warned that they were unassimilable . As the evidence poured in, and the blank statists started losing elections, they changed course, and the state of affairs you describe is the result. Sadly yet predictably, Pol(and) was right again.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
This guy argues it’s definitely russia.
-
they are losing, so are the most likely to do something stupid. I buy that to a degree.
-
the nature of the operation, covert, below the attribution threshold, suggests it’s russia, because other actors would either be more visible (eco-terrorism), or less (US). Imo the argument works for eco-terrorism or anti-war saboteurs, but not for the other side. He bizarrely assumes that the US and other countries (including russia, poland, ukraine) have the capacity to, say, destroy a pipeline, and it won’t even be detected as sabotage.
He’s also weak on motive. People trying to pin it in on russia give mutually exclusive reasons: it can’t be a false flag meant to sow discord in the alliance and a threat towards other pipelines at the same time.
I'd go with russia, but very weak confidence.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
There’s a contradiction. One the one hand, germany is insignificant and their backlash can be ignored. On the other, they are so influential they can force ukraine into an unfavourable peace and therefore ukraine needs to blow up a closed pipeline, consequences be damned.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
The mediterranean was called a roman lake. Seas are big, and they're swarming with civilians of different nationalities. Ship sighted is such weak evidence, I've seen it used for every possible culprit by now.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
According to russia, because of sanctions. If german politicians were fighting tooth and nail to keep them open, they would have tried to lift the sanctions, as russia unsubtly demanded.
You'd have to go pretty far down the pro-ru rabbit hole to believe germany is close to reopening, even karlin doesn't believe that. In the beginning, putin and pro-russia folks could reasonably believe the gas blackmail would work, but events have not supported that view (and putin closing NS1 is a result of that miscalculation).
Anyway, the original point is, if germany is insignificant, then so is their non-functioning pipeline.
Just spitballing, maybe we can switch the motives, actors and consequences of the different theories around. Did ukraine blow up the pipeline to give russia no way out, weakening the russian peace party, so they can kill more russians ? Makes no sense. What assumption did we miss?
Blowing up the pipeline is blowing up peace. But is it the peace after germany begs for gas, or after russia begs for euros? Which side is closer to breaking? If you believe germany is, germany’s allies are likely culprits, to avoid a pro-russian peace. If you believe germany is ukraine’s firm ally/not breaking, then blowing up the pipeline actually reduces ukraine’s leverage against russia, and makes an advantageous peace more unlikely for the west and the russian peace party. If you believe russia is closer to breaking, then it’s a pro-war party that doesn't like the pro-ukrainian peace, ie putin.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Just received notice that my bills are likely going to go up 50-70% in the coming months and then who knows what. It is not even cold here yet.
The state will likely pay for it, sadly. We'll end up buying gas at astronomical prices to keep industry and the population isolated from any problems, despite it not making any economic sense, ie, we would get more out the money if we reduced gas consumption for a couple of years by an amount close to russia's share of the market, and just spent it directly. I think developed economies are very resilient to this kind of schock, if you let markets do their work. There's a lot of slack. Just heat one or two rooms instead of the whole house this winter etc. It's the obvious solution, although I admit I have a spartan disposition.
Ukrainian hardliners do not want any peace that any Russian leader can put their signature and survive.
If the frontline stabilized, putin was removed and his successor said, 'we just want peace and to keep crimea, Ukraine can join nato', then if nothing happened, support for ukraine would drop .
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
I don't expect to literally freeze in the winter, but more likely to become unemployed. I find the focus on warming the households pretty insane when we seem to take it for granted that half the industry will just casually go bankrupt.
They idled industry during covid, and the state payed for that. No one got fired then. Sadly.
Then what? LNG infrastructure will take years to build and it will deliver much more expensive energy anyway. Building nuclear is out of question and takes forever in any case.
Nuclear bans, fracking bans, limited gas exploitation in holland etc are largely self-imposed. If it got bad, those decisions would be reversed. Even the slowness of building a nuclear power plant is mostly political. Nuclear plants take 16 years on average to build, but Japan builds them in four.. If you went by averages, you would have predicted it would take 10-15 years to come up with a covid vaccine. Building LNG terminals, same thing. My only worry is that the state will so distort the incentives that the urgency will not come through.
And then they would attempt to take Crimea anyway? Did you see any hint at all on the Ukrainian official's side that they are willing to let it go? ... This war has become truly existential for Russia and they might very well lose it.
Then good luck to them fighting an attritional war against russia without american weapons and european money.
Russian officials still claim maximalist goals in Ukraine, ukrainian statements likewise don't mean anything, they're boistering, refusing the opposition's offer, trying to anchor the negotiation to the most favourable starting position.
If western leaders are as bent on russia's destruction as you say, then russia is cooperating massively. It's russia's own fault, they started it, and they keep escalating a losing conflict. Putin didn't have to declare mobilization and annex the provinces. If russia started behaving like it has lost, western doves would win the debate, no matter what some hawks in washington and warsaw want.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
How are everyone’s stocks doing? Market was obviously overvalued, but I thought the fed would be even more anemic than it has been, so inflation would devalue it, not straight-up losses. I tried to crash-proof my portfolio with gold miners, but they’re the worst of a bad bunch. You’d think with the inflation and gold’s historical reputation, it wouldn’t move 1-to-1 with the stock market (or the printer, same thing). But it’s not a loss until you sell, so in for a penny, in for a doubloon.
Fortunately, the oil stocks I bought during covid have been keeping my head above water. Now I’m just waiting for spy to go lower to I can lever it to hell, either through leaps or 3x etfs .
And thanks to the guy on here who recommended tobacco based on historical overperformance, that’s been good. I’ll crash-proof it to the (black) gills with cancer next time (it’s okay, I used to smoke).
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Buy and hold is comfortable and has good expected returns, I recommend it to friends and family. For me though, even though I know it’s a tall order, I attempt to beat the market, because I enjoy the time I spend thinking about it. Even if I fail, as long as I keep transaction costs low, the expected return should be the same, minus my time, which is worth zero.
My go-to example for how beating the market can be done, and after which I decided to become more active, is covid: rats saw it coming, we had a discussion where people suggested puts on cruise companies, which would have 15xed a few weeks later. The main opposition to buying those puts wasn’t because we didn’t believe covid would be bad, but an ill-placed faith in the all-knowing market.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Do you think outsiders are treated better in your civilization? It seems to gradually oppress and murder its way to a 99% majority, and when it has reached the total cohesion so dear to FC, the full glory of muhammad’s vision comes into view: obscurantism, poverty , weakness, always teetering on the brink of civil and uncivil wars.
You’re a smart guy, part of the elite. Are you not ashamed of what your class and vision has produced for your civilization?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
You still have access, right? Just -50% loss. Do you own western stocks too? Can you buy and sell those? Would you get them if you left the country?
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
Here's the blog post about industry returns (table at the end) : http://www.philosophicaleconomics.com/2015/09/industry/
I think some industries are a terrible investment. It's always the same sectors: You hear about airlines never having made money, a steel company is always going bankrupt, and even buffett had a lot of trouble with his textile company. Boom-bust cycle in capital intensive sectors kills the return. You end up selling product at a loss half the time because you're stuck with all this unmovable machinery. For the winners otoh it looks like a 'sin stocks' effect.
fuckduck9000
1yr ago
They’d donate more than 2% of their income to BLM - hell, they should do what the hardcore EA people do and give everything except their basic living requirements to BLM.
If that's your bar, no one believes anything.
They want to stay ‘on top’, live their comfortable lives with zero real changes, they just want to feel better about it.
Implies they feel bad , which was westerly's point.
The crux is that acknowledgement is very different from return; when the government of BC actually gives Vancouver island back to the Natives, then you can talk about white progressives actually hating themselves enough to give it all up.
They've demonstrated their commitment by pouring billions into underperforming minorities' programs in the last decades. There is no substantial difference between what they've been doing and handing a few indians vast amounts of land and money directly.
That did not come through at all. Politicians, the media, and some, no doubt hand-picked lawyers, would casually brush off the unconstitutional objection, as if it were a meaningless piece of paper, red tape you can jettison whenever you feel like it. I refused to get tested daily when paragraph 28a went into force, sent an email referring to the grundgesetz , got fired. The direct result of government interference in my supposedly guaranteed rights. The lawyers I talked to said there was nothing to be done, it was all fine.
Not only did the lawyers failed to stop egregious violations of the constitution (and lockdowns are imo even worse), they failed to even communicate their opposition( if there was one) in the public square. Do you have some sources for the claim that lawyers unequivocally opposed the corona handling, was there an official pronouncement we all missed?
More options
Context Copy link