Investor20

This is correct IMO. The rate of spread ought to be higher amongst the young as well (think malls, night clubs, and party party party). So it stands to reason there are simply far more cases amongst the young because of rate of spread. CDC on clinical criteria for testing... https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-criteria.html This testing recommendation from CDC effectively biases those who get tests to older folks or people with preexisting medical problems (again, more likely to be older folks). Furthermore, it also depends on symptom severity and generally we know younger folks (based on data from China) show mild/no symptoms hence they are unlikely to get approved for a test in the United States. The older folks are more likely to throw a fever and develop shortness of breath. This leads one to conclude that the younger people who test positive for this illness must be the sicker younger folks who have this (because they were not denied a test) and we are excluding younger people with mild/no symptoms (who are denied testing). So the overall mortality/ICU stay skews higher since we are only looking at younger patients who are sicker to begin with. Again, for the 100th time explains the downside of being limited on testing. The U.S., being among the last developed nation to get this outbreak is among the most unprepared. A travesty of leadership. "The U.S., being among the last developed nation to get this outbreak is among the most unprepared." US has lot of travel both to Europe and China. Why do you think they are last in getting this outbreak? May be the policies are better that US held it off longer than any one else? May be everyone start date (outside China) is same. Why would Europe or Korea have earlier exposer than US? If you check deaths, they are lowest for US of most developed countries on per capita basis (worldometer numbers). For example US has 170 vs Korea with 90 for total deaths. But US population is 6.7 times more, making it much, much better. Korea adjusted for population to US would be 603 deaths. Even for "New Deaths", US has 21 vs S. Korea 7. That makes adjusted for population, S. Korea 46, well above US 21. Sweden with population of 10 million has total deaths of 11, adjusted to US population, it is 374. Norway with population of 5.4 million has total deaths of 7, adjusted to US population, it is 476. IMO all countries outside China got exposed around same time. If anything US having so much trade with China, probably has lot more travel with China and had more exposer. Yet in deaths, after four months (first case in Nov), US is doing better than any other nation in west or S Korea. Now, if you really want to follow, it is Japan. They controlled it pretty well. Japan with population of 127 million has total deaths of 32 and new deaths of 3, adjusted for US population, total deaths of 86 and new deaths of 8, better than US. But Japan didn't test much or have lock downs....now figure that out!

https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-making-decisions-without-reliable-data/ The data and analysis from Diamond princess is particularly interesting IMO. The author has good credentials. John P.A. Ioannidis is professor of medicine, of epidemiology and population health, of biomedical data science, and of statistics at Stanford University and co-director of Stanford’s Meta-Research Innovation Center.

I am interested in exploring investing in start ups and looking for forums to look for ideas. I have not done investing in start ups before. One I found is startup grind but it is mostly seems to be software/apps and very few of other types of ideas. https://www.startupgrind.com/startups-title/exhibitors-2019/ Any suggestions of any other forums such as start up grind but has more variety ideas. Thanks a lot

The nice thing about Buffett is he stands by his word weather he likes Trump or not and yes there are differences in thinking between Buffett and Trump, but in wanting low trade deficit and the way to go about it, Trump is the closest politician to Buffett thinking (compared to Hillary or 16 other republicans). To quote from fortune magazine below: "My remedy may sound gimmicky, and in truth it is a tariff called by another name. " http://fortune.com/2016/04/29/warren-buffett-foreign-trade/ Warren Buffett: Here's How I Would Solve the Trade Problem

Do I have to read a book to find that out about Trump? And wait a minute there is another person who thinks in those terms about Trade, and trade deficit is like living on credit card - Warren Buffett. Buffett re-iterated this in a recent CNBC interview: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/07/full-transcript-billionaire-investor-warren-buffett-speaks-with-cnbcs-becky-quick-on-squawk-box-today.html WARREN BUFFETT: I think it was in 2003, Joe, I wrote an article for Fortune actually about the trade deficit. I was worried about it getting too large then. Because, again, it was getting to be 3% or so of GDP. It-- wasn't specific to China at all. But it was just a question of how wise it is to let the trade deficit grow larger and larger. Because when you run-- when you are in effect buying more from other countries than they're buying from you, you are handing them investment funds. I mean, it's the nature. You give 'em little pieces of paper, and they can convert that into buying-- they can buy government bonds. They can buy buildings here. And-- Japanese bought Pebble Beach in the 1980s when they were running a big-- surplus. I mean, so you are giving up claim checks on our country essentially in exchange for having more consumption now than you're producing in this country. And so I do think that there's levels of trade deficit that bother me. I had some system that did not make it country specific. But I think-- the world has gotten better and better. And there's no question that-- that countries may try and take advantage in this or that. And-- we've actually been guilty of that sometimes in the past, too. I don't think leaders in other countries, whether China or 100 other countries, are not smart enough-- to realize that it's in the interest to keep promoting trade. The more we trade over time. And-- we don't want it to be a question of where we important 20% of our GDP and we export nothing. Now, we could all quick working, and we could hand little pieces of paper to the rest of the world, and they could keep sending us food. And they can send us autos. And they can send us all kinds of things. But eventually they have claims on all our wealth. So-- we do want to have policies where the overall trade deficit does not get out of hand in relation to GDP. And I've been arguing that for a long, long time. (Emphasis in bold added)

Yes..Thats why its a must read. I cannot obviously reproduce big portions of the book. But to quote from first chapter "Overtesting and overtreatment turn out to be rampant in the back pain world. This partly explains why costs are skyrocketing while results are plunging". To me its more than back pain. If policy makers really want to reduce medical costs, this is something they should read.

https://www.amazon.com/Watch-Your-Back-Industry-Less_and/dp/0801453240/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1514944674&sr=8-1&keywords=deyo+back+pain I have not read the whole book but read parts of it. If you check at pubmed, Deyo RA, you get over 50 research publications studying pain including many clinical studies. So, it is written by a person who knows in depth what works and what does not work. Just to give couple of sentences from the book. "Annual surveys of people with back pain report steadily worse functional limitations over the past decade. Work disability due to back pain has been increasing. And rates of repeat surgery have been going up instead of down." "Over roughly a decade, from 1994 to 2005, there was a 300 percent increase in MRI scans........There was over 100 percent increase in the use of narcotic pain killers....and over a 200 percent increase in spinal fusion surgery...". A must read.

Even if your library does not have access, you can get non-resident card from some libraries. A list is given in below link. Fairfax county costs 27$/year and has access to morningstar, valueline, Barrons & Wall Street journal. http://blog.the-ebook-reader.com/2011/09/22/library-ebooks-for-non-residents-where-to-get-ebooks-if-your-library-is-lacking/ Below link has some details on the access you can at different libraries, but I have not checked if all of them have morningstar & valueline that I am interested in. https://wiki.mobileread.com/wiki/EBook_Lending_Libraries#USA_Libraries_that_offer_cards_online_or_by_mail.2C_to_non-residents

Using S&P 500 calculator from below website I am getting annualized total return (dividends re-invested) of 2.36% after inflation correction or 4.7% before inflation correction. https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ Using below calculator for VFINX I am getting 4.5% before inflation correction. http://www.buyupside.com/stockreturncalculator/stockreturncalcinput.php

I think Obama was very focused on what happens during his 8 years...not beyond it. Unfortunately what a president does has effects beyond their term. Look at small business growth eco-system: Sputtering Startups Weigh on U.S. Economic Growth: "That is, tech entrepreneurs are generating good ideas and founding companies at a healthy pace, but those ventures aren’t breaking out into successful big companies. “The system for translating good, high-quality foundings into a growth firm, that system seems to have broken,” said Scott Stern, an MIT professor and co-author of the study on startups." (Emphasis in bold added) http://www.wsj.com/articles/sputtering-startups-weigh-on-u-s-economic-growth-1477235874 The problem with Obama policies are IMO are pretty bad in long term. The American dream of starting out like Bill Gates or Bezos and building a big corporation is slowly being destroyed.

I never accused you of being xenophobic. I also never had a discussion with you about stagnating wages. The genesis of this conversation was your reply that free trade or as you insist on calling it "fair trade" was not supported by a majority of Americans. You're obviously making the claim that Donald Trump would be better at resolving the issue, otherwise it's a complete non sequitur in the 'which presidential candidate will you vote for?' thread. You also tried to do so here. Trump proposal is to use Tariffs. The White House has been confronting the issue by researching the origins of the crime, initiating indictments against the perpetrators, and passing legislation and issuing executive orders to provide remedies for the damages. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-announce-first-criminal-charges-against-foreign-country-for-cyberspying/2014/05/19/586c9992-df45-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html I did not say you said xenophobe, but I started discussing this with another poster about stagnating wages when this started. You picked it up later in the discussion. Coming back to the IP theft, it is only getting worse or at least did not get better since 2012 when the NSA called it "greatest wealth transfer ever in history. That is Obama should have known since at least 2011 this problem and had 5 years to fix it. Why should I not give a chance to Trump at this point? NSA Chief: "That’s our future disappearing in front of us" July 2012. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/09/nsa-chief-cybercrime-constitutes-the-greatest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history/ I was looking for when the problem is first recognized and I found an interesting WhiteHouse document: "It's been estimated that last year alone cyber criminals stole intellectual property from businesses worldwide worth up to $1 trillion. In short, America's economic prosperity in the 21st century will depend on cybersecurity." https://www.whitehouse.gov/video/President-Obama-on-Cybersecurity#transcript May 2009

I never accused you of being xenophobic. I also never had a discussion with you about stagnating wages. The genesis of this conversation was your reply that free trade or as you insist on calling it "fair trade" was not supported by a majority of Americans. You're obviously making the claim that Donald Trump would be better at resolving the issue, otherwise it's a complete non sequitur in the 'which presidential candidate will you vote for?' thread. You also tried to do so here. Trump proposal is to use Tariffs. The White House has been confronting the issue by researching the origins of the crime, initiating indictments against the perpetrators, and passing legislation and issuing executive orders to provide remedies for the damages. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-to-announce-first-criminal-charges-against-foreign-country-for-cyberspying/2014/05/19/586c9992-df45-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html I did not say you said xenophobe, but I started discussing this with another poster about stagnating wages when this started. You picked it up later in the discussion. Coming back to the IP theft, it is only getting worse or at least did not get better since 2012 when the NSA called it "greatest wealth transfer ever in history. That is Obama should have known since at least 2011 this problem and had 5 years to fix it. Why should I not give a chance to Trump at this point? NSA Chief: "That’s our future disappearing in front of us" July 2012. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/09/nsa-chief-cybercrime-constitutes-the-greatest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history/

Here is John Carlin's white paper regarding national security cyber threats: https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Carlin%20FINAL.pdf On pg. 428, he writes: There is no reason to believe that Donald Trump would be tougher or more successful in preventing commercial espionage other than your predisposition towards him. Thank you for checking the information. That is right - it is not xenophobics that brought in the discussion of trade sanctions. The original discussion on this started when I posted stagnating wages. One poster here challenged me to give one policy of Trump that could help in wages. Then I posted this - theft of IP and over 2 million high paying jobs that are lost. So, who is better a different discussion. The point is people are not xenophobics when they say certain things. They are not against trade. But does not mean one has to just sit and watch when 400 billion dollars worth of theft is happening each year. I think Trump needs to be given a chance. This theft is not new. The IP commision linked below said in May 2013 - I presume the data is of 2012 or earlier. So its been happening for a while. Obama/HC had their chance to fix it. IP Commission report: Co-chair: Dennis C. Blair, former Director of National Intelligence and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Command Co-chair: Jon M. Huntsman, Jr., former Ambassador to China, Governor of the state of Utah, and Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The annual losses are likely to be comparable to the current annual level of U.S. exports to Asia—over $300 billion. The exact figure is unknowable, but private and governmental studies tend to understate the impacts due to inadequacies in data or scope. The members of the Commission agree with the assessment by the Commander of the United States Cyber Command and Director of the National Security Agency, General Keith Alexander, that the ongoing theft of IP is “the greatest transfer of wealth in history.” (Emphasis in bold added) Obama/Clinton had at least four years to fix it. http://www.ipcommission.org/report/ip_commission_report_052213.pdf

You are the one that brought up all of those issues in your original comment: But if you want to talk about IP theft specifically, that is fine. IP theft refers to a number of practices including patent infringement, trademark violations, copyright infringement, and trade secret theft. Tariffs are ineffective at dealing with any of these issues. There already are legal mechanisms to resolve patent infringement disputes. Items that violate trademark and copyright protections are already contraband. That leaves trade secret theft as the very narrow ground you're defending. You should be proud to know that the Foreign Economic Espionage Penalty Enhancement Act was signed into law by President Obama in 2013 sets penalties for the misappropriation of trade secrets of up to $5 million for individuals and up to three times the actual value of the trade secret for organizations. That law, in conjunction with the Theft of Trade Secrets Clarification Act signed in 2012 allows prosecutors to seek redress for violations of the statutes. On the other hand, your proposed solution of tariffs would apply not to the specific perpetrators of the theft but to all exporters of that good or service from that country. Please read the reference before commenting http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/ Few points: (John Carlin is assistant attorney general of National Security) You are talking about individuals but it is not what John Carlin says: John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world. John Carlin: These were officers in uniform and their day job was to get up, go to work, log on, and steal from a range of American companies. You are talking about American laws that are applicable in America: Lesley Stahl: You know, it feels like a pinprick, your indictment. They're never going to be extradited. Is there talk of putting any sanctions on the way we did with Russia when they went into the Ukraine? John Carlin: The bottom line I think has to be that we continue to increase the costs until the behavior changes. If it doesn't change, then we need to keep thinking of additional actions, whether they're trade actions or sanctions that change the behavior. It is not small as you say: "is costing U.S. corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and more than two million jobs" Lesley Stahl: Do you have a number of U.S. companies that have been hit? John Carlin: It's thousands of actually companies have been hit. Lesley Stahl: Thousands of U.S. companies? John Carlin: Of U.S. companies. Emphasis in bold has been added.

Trump has never proposed using tariffs as a response to corporate espionage or cyber attacks. His suggestion of implementing tariffs is based on making American companies more cost competitive with their foreign counterparts. Tariffs are a completely inappropriate policy response to intellectual property theft. First, the perpetrator and sponsor of the crime is often unclear. Second, the purpose of IP theft is almost never reselling that product or service internationally, it's to consume the product if it's digital media, or to sell domestically if it's a knock-off, or to improve a company's own capabilities if it's a trade secret or industrial design, or to commit financial fraud if it's sensitive personal data. Here are Donald Trump's actual remarks on cybersecurity: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-remarks-on-cybersecurity You are confused between stealing passwords, identity theft, etc vs stealing of technology. The stealing of technology is clumped by trump in unfair trade practices. As given in the 60 minutes "The Great Brain Robbery", the National Security Agency itself is saying its a national emergency because they are stealing technologies like blue prints, plans, chemical formulas, software etc, instead of developing their own products. In the 60 minutes (I provided link in this thread) an American company developed technology for Wind turbine and was stolen not by hacking, but by bribing their employee. Watch below for a preview. In this story, the wind turbine using the stolen technology was brought by US government. So, I don't exactly understand why you say they won't compete. They make a clone for much less (there is no R&D costs) and sell it right back to us. http://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/dezPcSXAPyxM2dYFKaWv1s3gjUxZXffb/preview-the-great-brain-robbery/ The below LA times article also talks about it: "Still, Trump’s suggestion of a 45% tariff on Chinese imports would, by my calculations, be an appropriate level. More than 10 years ago, I began analyzing exactly how China’s state-run industries significantly undercut foreign manufacturers and found that lower labor costs accounted for only 39% of China’s price advantage. Five other unfair trade practices — the aforementioned illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation along with intellectual property theft and lax worker safety and environmental regulations — are the bigger story." (emphasis in bold added) http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-navarro-trump-trade-china-tariffs-20160721-snap-story.html

So what's your feeling about Vice President Biden openly threatening Russia with massive cyber attacks? Good diplomacy? Okay, but only because he's a democrat? I'd like to hear your thoughts. BTW. Biden is a sitting Vice President making an open, immediate, and credible threat to another nation, not just someone running for office spewing nonsense as they all do when campaigning. EDIT: Some background. Since the American press doesn't seem to want to report much on these issues. Biden Threatens Cyberwar With Russia, Kremlin Vows To Protect Itself My post earlier in this thread asking why Hillary and Obama are so keen on provoking a war, even nuclear war, with Russia (still unanswered BTW) OK, if a poll does not support your thinking, there is something wrong with it. Bloomberg poll gives 2/3 united in the trade issue across parties. HC dream of open trade is a minority. Fair trade means, people won't steal and pay for the goods/services. Trump proposal is to use Tariffs.

The Great Brain Robbery "costing U.S. corporations hundreds of billions of dollars and more than two million jobs" John Carlin: They're targeting our private companies. And it's not a fair fight. A private company can't compete against the resources of the second largest economy in the world. "This is a serious threat to our national security," says John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security. "Our economy depends on the ability to innovate and if there's a dedicated nation state who's using its intelligence apparatus to steal...what we're trying to develop, that poses a serious threat to our country." John Carlin is the assistant attorney general for National Security with responsibility for counterterrorism, cyberattacks and increasingly economic espionage. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/60-minutes-great-brain-robbery-china-cyber-espionage/ Transcript above link. You can also watch previews or google and watch video. Being against trade and being against unfair trade are different.

The majority of people in the U.S. do not support: building a wall along the Mexican border, banning Muslim immigrants and refugees, and trade protectionism. You are misreading a vocal minority for a majority. I don't think this is true. Polls I have seen show a majority do favor protectionism over free trade. You are right that majority may not favor the other two, but they are near 50/50. Polls don't favor a wall along the whole border but that is not what has been proposed. It is all about wording in polls. I agree that the wording of the question matters but the polling that I've seen does not support that view. "Free trade agreements between the U.S. and other countries have been a ___ for the United States" Good thing: 51%, Bad thing: 39%. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/republicans-especially-trump-supporters-see-free-trade-deals-as-bad-for-u-s/ "What do you think foreign trade means for America? Do you see foreign trade more as an opportunity for economic growth through increased U.S. exports or a threat to the economy from foreign imports?" Opportunity: 58%, Threat: 34%. http://www.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/190427/american-public-opinion-foreign-trade.aspx "Which of the following statements come closer to what you think?" I think free trade with foreign countries is good for America because it opens up new markets and we cannot avoid the fact that it is a global economy: 55%, I think free trade with foreign countries is bad for America because it has hurt manufacturing and other key industries and there is no proof more trade creates better jobs: 38%. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-conventions/majority-voters-support-free-trade-immigration-poll-n611176 The question is between free trade vs fair trade. If people are asked about fair trade, then I believe people would want that. I posted this link earlier. "U.S. companies lose about $250 billion per year through intellectual property theft, with another $114 billion lost due to cyber crime, a number that rises to $338 billion when the costs of down time due to crime are taken into account, said Alexander, the director of the National Security Agency and commander of U.S. Cyber Command, in remarks Monday at the American Enterprise Institute. " Emphasis in bold added. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/07/09/nsa-chief-cybercrime-constitutes-the-greatest-transfer-of-wealth-in-history/ When this is connected to jobs and wages, the country is united as noted here: "Large majorities or pluralities favor policies protecting domestic jobs over lower prices, describe the North American Free Trade Agreement as being bad for the U.S., and even prefer a U.S. company building a nearby factory to employ 1,000 workers over a foreign -- in this instance Chinese -- owner that would hire twice as many." http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-24/free-trade-opposition-unites-political-parties-in-bloomberg-poll My opinion and Trump said many times too. It is not being against free trade or immigration. It is that being done fair and legally respectively.

You ask why 400 billion dollar of cyber theft by foreign countries is important for wage stagnation? Really - is that even a serious question? First of all I started the discussion with wage stagnation - and gave Fed data. You added wage inequality - though they are not completely different and asked me to provide one proposal by Trump that helps wages. Then I said there is about 400 billion dollars of IP theft as per US government and provided a link. Now you ask why 400 billion dollars/year theft from American corporations is important for what I call wage stagnation and what you call wage inequality. This question shows people are not interested in facts. O.K. just to entertain your ridiculous questions for one last time - the 360 billion dollars are worth more than 2.7 million jobs a year. "As Chairman Murphy mentioned, this theft costs the U.S. over 300 billion a year, over 2 million jobs that are lost." This report is in 2013. Now the government raised the estimates to 400 billion/year. So it is about 2.7 million jobs/year. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg86391/html/CHRG-113hhrg86391.htm

He said he will go after Intellectual property theft. "Economic espionage through hacking is costing the U.S. economy $400 billion a year, he said." Emphasis in bold added. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-18/no-sign-china-has-stopped-hacking-u-s-companies-official-says This is just cyber theft. Take for Microsoft. Their revenues from China are miniscule even though chinese use Microsoft products a lot. Why should not US government take up a fight about that? That is in addition to the 400 Billion dollar/year Espionage.

May be Liberty, meanwhile you can also dig up some data on the Attorneys who are making less than janitors that an earlier poster referred. Scientists who are unemployed. In last 6 months I came across two scientists unemployed for over 3 years, one with a Ph.D. with a highly ranked university. Like this Redditt guy (this guy graduated in 2012): And ask yourself a simple question - whats happening with our economy? I already posted data that shows the wages today inflation adjusted are same as in 1979. How come with all the computers, drugs, TVs and many other technologies developed primarily from US, the US worker is doing so bad? Can you provide a single concrete example from Trump's platform that would help with that situation or income inequality? First of all I am not against trade. But trade has to be sensible. Ford said it nicely - the employees should be able to buy the product they make. So much of outsourcing where the person who makes the product and the person who buys the product are different does not make any sense. A corporation may make more profit in short time, but overall for the country it is not better. But why does our government keep on doing this. Because the "leaders" are more concerned about their corporate lobbyists than over all economy. As the salaries go down with full open trade, the purchase power of the country also decreases. This is the source of inequality. But this also not good for our stock market. Just check S&P performance against many of the trading partners. It is not good for investors either in long term. Trump is addressing this aspect of income inequality. This is why so many blue collar workers attend Trump rallies. Not because they are deplorable or xenophobic. Because they see what the elitist economists cannot see. The workers wages, their purchase power has been going down for a long time. I am against trade that makes wages go down for the workers, and hence my support for Trump who is addressing this issue. Yea, I'll call 3/4 of a bull turd on that. Firstly, you still haven't answered my question. Specifically what single concrete proposal has Trump put forth that would address income inequality. Btw, I'll make better deals, believe me, I'm the only one who can does not count as a concrete proposal. Secondly, trade may be a contributor. That isn't all that clear right now. One thing's for sure. Boston lawyers aren't earning low wages because of trade. Thirdly, what's up all this elitist economist this and elitist that. Since when did educating yourself, working hard, and becoming a leader in your field become a negative? Do you think that if we put Billy Bob in charge of Treasury and his cousin Joe Dropout in charge of commerce everything would work itself just fine? Cause by that reasoning we should put Billy Bob in charge of thoracic surgery and his cousin Joe Dropout in charge of brain surgery and we solved the health care cost problem. Fourthly, there hasn't been that much disagreement among the top "elitist" economists on how to deal with the crisis. However, the GOP has fought and opposed recommendations the whole way. Trade is actually a much more complicated problem. And yes, there will be debates and disagreements and it'll take time to work it out. That's how the process works to actually get to a good solution and progress. You just called not just Trump supporters, a significant Democrats Bull Turd. That is you called a vast majority of the country Bull Turd. Bernie Sanders said “Let’s be clear: The TPP is much more than a ‘free trade’ agreement,” argues Sanders. “It is part of a global race to the bottom to boost the profits of large corporations and Wall Street by outsourcing jobs; undercutting worker rights; dismantling labor, environmental, health, food safety, and financial laws; and allowing corporations to challenge our laws in international tribunals rather than our own court system.” "Those same exit polls showed that almost 60 percent of Michigan Democratic primary voters believed that flawed trade policies cost jobs—and they overwhelmingly favored Sanders." Emphasis in bold added https://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-wins-in-michigan-thanks-to-trade-policy/ Yes I blame economists. Did they tell us that Obamacare will have huge premium hikes, high deductibles, your doctor may not be available in plan....etc? If they did, can you share the link? Oklahoma Obamacare plans face 76 percent hike http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/oklahoma-obamacare-plans-face-76-percent-hike/article/2603629

May be Liberty, meanwhile you can also dig up some data on the Attorneys who are making less than janitors that an earlier poster referred. Scientists who are unemployed. In last 6 months I came across two scientists unemployed for over 3 years, one with a Ph.D. with a highly ranked university. Like this Redditt guy (this guy graduated in 2012): And ask yourself a simple question - whats happening with our economy? I already posted data that shows the wages today inflation adjusted are same as in 1979. How come with all the computers, drugs, TVs and many other technologies developed primarily from US, the US worker is doing so bad? Can you provide a single concrete example from Trump's platform that would help with that situation or income inequality? First of all I am not against trade. But trade has to be sensible. Ford said it nicely - the employees should be able to buy the product they make. So much of outsourcing where the person who makes the product and the person who buys the product are different does not make any sense. A corporation may make more profit in short time, but overall for the country it is not better. But why does our government keep on doing this. Because the "leaders" are more concerned about their corporate lobbyists than over all economy. As the salaries go down with full open trade, the purchase power of the country also decreases. This is the source of inequality. But this also not good for our stock market. Just check S&P performance against many of the trading partners. It is not good for investors either in long term. Trump is addressing this aspect of income inequality. This is why so many blue collar workers attend Trump rallies. Not because they are deplorable or xenophobic. Because they see what the elitist economists cannot see. The workers wages, their purchase power has been going down for a long time. I am against trade that makes wages go down for the workers, and hence my support for Trump who is addressing this issue.

May be Liberty, meanwhile you can also dig up some data on the Attorneys who are making less than janitors that an earlier poster referred. Scientists who are unemployed. In last 6 months I came across two scientists unemployed for over 3 years, one with a Ph.D. with a highly ranked university. Like this Redditt guy (this guy graduated in 2012): And ask yourself a simple question - whats happening with our economy? I already posted data that shows the wages today inflation adjusted are same as in 1979. How come with all the computers, drugs, TVs and many other technologies developed primarily from US, the US worker is doing so bad?

Buffett moved on to long term as he grew older only because he had to invest larger sums which does not let him invest in smaller companies - NOT because it is better. Buffett himself said "A fat wallet is the enemy of superior investment results". Buffett with smaller amounts will not be doing what the Buffett the elder does. Why should we?

While I would like that to be true, I don't think it is. There's a large group of angry people out there, disappointed with politics, immigration, growing income disparity and angry about Wall Street and job losses due to technology changes and competition from China. These people are not going to think in four years: "well, we tried Trump, that didn't work out, let's get back to Jeb Bush.". They hate Jeb Bush almost as much as Hillary Clinton because they both represent 'the elite'. Both parties, but especially the Republicans, have grown completely out of synch with their voter base. Their leaders are living on a completely different planet than, for example, a fired coal miner in Virginia. The Bern and Trump are symptons of this problem, not a one-off event. Chris Arnade has written a couple of nice articles about this. This is not only true for the USA. A similar thing is happening in most developed countries (UK: Brexit & UKIP, France: Le Pen, Germany: Pegina, the Netherlands: Wilders, Italy: Beppe Grillo, Austria: Freedom Party). I'm certainly no expert on politics but I think that globalisation, immigration and growing inequality are serious issues that is not going away in a few years and there will be more demagogues who will try to take advantage of this. There is also a contingent of people who are MAD and think (rightly or wrongly) that they have been BETRAYED. For example, I am an attorney and work with other attorneys. I work with people aged 29-70+. The young attorneys are USUALLY in bad, bad spots. Their lives are not good. There are two problems. A). The amount of debt they have is simply staggering. Most of them have $100k+ in student loans. A decent percentage have student loans of $200k+. If the younger attorney is not married, the odds are they still live at home with their parents OR live with roommates. They simply can't afford to live on their own. B). While employed as attorney I make a VERY modest hourly rate. This is especially so when considering the amount of education and training that I have. I work on massive cases, preparing for trial. Never go to trial, just help in the preparation. It is 95%+ of the time incredibly boring and tedious work. That is putting it mildly. In fact, a lot of people simply can't hack it, it is so tedious... I am doing this work simply to rebuild my bankroll and hope to soon leave law forever behind. I have something to fall back on. Most of my associates have completely useless undergraduate degrees (History, English, Journalism, Political Science, Philosophy). These things ain't worth the paper they are printed on. They ain't getting any job in their undergraduate field. I work with people who graduated all the way from Cooley (low ranked) to University of Michigan and Duke (high ranked). Jobs are scarce in the legal field. A good percentage of jobs that DO exist, simply don't pay well. I have heard stories of attorneys that worked insurance defense, bankruptcy, low level criminal work, family law, that gave it all up to work the "big money" prepping for lawsuits. They left jobs that paid $9-$10 an hour when you consider the hours they had to work (salary of $30k, 3k+ hours a year). I am simply amazed at the stories I hear. So you've got these moderately intelligent, highly educated, hard working people that have no way out. They most likely will not advance in their profession, they can't make enough to pay back their student loans. They were lied to by the educators. Many of them feel tricked and are hopeless and depressed. I know several that are on anti-depressant medication. Several are going to vote for Hillary, as they think she will do something to alleviate student loan debt. Others I know are going to vote for Trump. They simply can't stand Hillary. She is "disgusting waste of human flesh" as one attorney put it...But more importantly, they think they have a "chance" with Trump. As one Trump supporter put it to me, I have almost ZERO percent chance of things getting better with Hillary. I am far, far, behind the "eight ball". My life is in tatters. I have a CHANCE with Trump. It might be 20% or 30%...but I'm going to take it. If things "blow up" so what? I'm already in a dire situation, if the elite take a fall, so much the better. Maybe things get better... So there you go! This is coming from attorneys. I am going to suggest that the amount of people who are in bad situations and hoping for change is simply staggering in this country. One part of the debate that struck me in Trump - HC debate is his repeated question - what were you (I heard it as about all politicians - not just HC) doing for last 30 years? Look at the data (these guys want facts!). The median real wages in 1979 is 335$ The median real wages in 2016 is 345$ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q