Blugolds

Was just talking about this with a buddy. I have a cabin up north and last week they were sending me video of a hail storm, golf ball size, literally bouncing off the ground, deck, driveway, it was insane, ground was covered. Everyone in area got hit....then again just yesterday..same thing. 2 crazy storms within a week or so of each other. My buddy had claim for siding, windows, fascia and roof repair, also both vehicles totaled from hail. I guess upshot for insurance companies is at least storms were consecutive, once claims filed, cant total an already totaled car LOL

I'm guilty of all of the above. I've gotten better over the years at position sizing, but still think I have a lot of room for improvement there. Entry positions as I do more research and gain conviction only to see them take off on me. I should either take a position and mean it, or not bother. If the pitch is good and you know it...swing...less of this check swing stuff. Position sizing as port has gown over the years has also played with my head a little. Now, after many years, even a 5% position in a name is what I still consider serious money and if thinking about it in $$ vs % it can mess with my head. Thats different for each individual/portfolio. The % helps me think objectively and not that this position is the equivalent of buying a house. Also, one that I have learned the hard way, and was mentioned by Charlie Munger. "Over the long term, it's hard for a stock to earn a much better return than the business which underlies it earns. If the business earns 6% on capital over 40 years and you hold it for that 40 years, you're not going to make much different than a 6% return—even if you originally buy it at a huge discount. Conversely, if a business earns 18% on capital over 20 or 30 years, even if you pay an expensive looking price, you'll end up with a fine result." At the end of the day, remembering this has helped me to put more things in the "too hard/why bother" pile than I would have previously as well as being more comfortable with GARP. Is the juice worth the squeeze. I find this concept so simple and valuable, but continually see people forget it. I have a couple names that are pillars, BRK, COST, but there are others that I take and previously never really had an exit plan. I've gotten better at that. Previously I took a position, saw it increase, sometimes even exponentially, and just sat there. Why? I dunno, tax reasons, validation of my work "getting that one right"...but if you are targeting a return for a port, and you achieved that return quickly, and the shares are fully valued optimistically now, why stay? Lock in those returns and move on because when the shares are now priced for perfection there is no more juice to squeeze. Instead, earlier in my journey I would ride it all the way up, and then all the way down, just sitting there and the reluctance of potentially paying taxes on a gain never materialized because eventually there was no gain! Or it was so small that it was insignificant. Dumb. and I've "lost" more unrealized money in the past by not being smart about when to exit/move on than I have with poor picks. Early I spent all my time/energy looking for businesses without devoting enough time to deciding what to do when I had made good choices, held the name and had gains, often significant ones. Due diligence isnt just in the beginning, and I always held on to the "make money when you buy, not sell" mantra...so wasnt concerned about selling. I do better with this now, but still sometimes find it a challenge, and have often taken money off the table too soon. There are worse problems to have and "nobody ever went broke locking in gains" but opportunity cost can sting a little in hindsight. My point is, if I do a valuation and make an investment that I think will return X% in X years and it gets there in a year or two, and is now priced for perfection, its run its course, take it out and look for another runway. Seems like common sense but I used to struggle with this more. Took some time to improve and get better in that regard. I think that is part of what I find so interesting about the markets. I'm continually learning and being "taught". Perspective is constantly changing. I cant tell you how many times that I have thought ideas were solid, only to find out they were lousy because of things I didnt know. Or thought that ideas were lousy, only to be shown that they were solid because of things I didnt consider. In retrospect they seem obvious. Final one is another from Munger...There is equal or even more value in trying to limit your big mistakes, play a little defense and be picky. Always looking for that fat pitch, you can sit there watching them fly by as long as you want, no balls called in this game. Making sure you dont swing at stuff you dont have confidence in hitting is just as important as swinging big when you see the fat pitch. Ultimately, I enjoy reading about businesses, management, markets and learning. But this journey has taught me just as much if not more about human behavior (my own and others) than it has about business, an unintended consequence initially, but equally as interesting and valuable.

one child policy ended in…2016!! And that is definitely not “one cherry picked thing” in chinas history. America is not perfect, far from it for sure. Plenty of skeletons in the closet. But if I have to chose I choose the USA x10000. I have zero problems with Chinese people, I am not anti China, I’m anti CCP. Now you take that however you want. Either you say they are different things or they are the same. If you say they are the same then you are just reiterating the point. There is no freedom in China. I can’t tell if you are more pro China or Anti US. You say you just want unbiased facts but then every post of yours, sometimes several in a row, are either bashing the US or advocating for how great China is. Surprised you’re on a message board whose namesake heralds from Canadian and US dirty companies, is there a Chinese alternative you would feel more comfortable in? No there is not…and we all know why Berkshire and Fairfax are not HQ’s in China…

China Is building the most brazen military bases in the world in the SCS. And any country that sends abortion death squads to villages to forcibly remove or “dispose” of babies because of a one child policy tells you everything you need to know. That would never happen in the US. So continue to advocate for the CCP. I do not want to live in a world controlled by the CCP, but from your frequent posts in this thread it seems that you’re all for it.

Also always the risk that you sell puts at a price you'd like to own the stock, and then the stock takes off on you, you made the premium on the puts but lost on the run up. Thats happened to me a couple times. There are worse problem to have, but I've missed out on quite a bit over the years because I was being "greedy" waiting for just a little better entry price that never came. Always think of that quote by Buffett that you should spend the majority of your energy making the right pick of a partner to marry and not worrying too much if you overpaid for the ring. Price you pay matters..but focus more on what you are buying because if its something that you want to hold, .50-$1 or a couple bucks isnt gonna matter 5-10yrs from now. That being said, when BRK starts to get priced attractively I do sell puts. Looking back through the years some I have been assigned and it went great, and some were not assigned and in hindsight, I would have been much better off if they would have! Bought quite a bit of BRK back in 2020 for instance, I would call it a significant amount, all >$200 and >$300k. Also sold quite a few puts..but should have just been buying > $200. Rather than selling puts in $5-$10 increments dreaming of getting BRK for $150 or less. Like @gfp said, I keep it tight, usually weeklies → 1 month or so depending on the situation and I wouldnt say I do it regularly.

Im probably naïve to the "game" but didnt realize he would still accrue miles (whats the point? ((no pun intended))he flies for free anyway)...and then be able to leverage those miles and sell them etc. I dont know how he accrues, and sounds like he was successful anyway if he could afford the Lifetime pass, but if you made enough and were able to leverage it, treat it like a job, and it sounds like he is. A job that allows you to see the world and make money doing it, not a bad gig. I do think it would get old after a while. I think of when I was 16 and just got my drivers license, if mom asked me to go to the grocery store 5 min away...on my own, and get a gallon of milk it was the most exciting thing in the world, the freedom!! Now, middle age, if I could buy a completely autonomous car or hire a driver I would in a heartbeat, the excitement wore off years ago and now its a chore. Cant help but think that it might be the same with flying. But maybe the world is a smaller place and the excitement of being able to go have sushi tonight in Japan, completely free with lodging..and then go catch an opera in Sydney..all free...never gets old LOL Interesting that he has seen 4 people die on planes from heart attacks..cant help but wonder, with the pace he is going..if he will join the ranks, how long can a guy keep that pace and at what age does he need provisions for an O2 cart... Best of luck to him though! He's livin the life!

Day to day things, minor issues, its probably all the same. If I had a serious issue, if I couldn't mess around and I wanted the best possible care I would personally pick Mayo. I've spent considerable time around the Mayo system and the way it operates (no pun intended), the resources, collaboration, attention to detail, results etc is IMO superb. There is a reason that dignitaries/elite from all over the world go there for care/treatment etc. They could literally pick any provider, anywhere in the world, and they chose Mayo. https://www.mayoclinic.org/why-choose-mayo-clinic/what-makes-mayo-clinic-different https://www.mayoclinic.org/about-mayo-clinic/quality/top-ranked

Seems like such the obvious correct, reasonable, logical route..and yet it seems like everyone is on one side or the other. Either drill baby drill!...or zero fossil fuels, everything has to be clean and if you dont like it we are gonna force it down your throat. As you described, it can be both! Yes, clean energy can make sense if done in a rational, intelligent and gradual manner. I love the idea of renewables, net-zero home building practices, geothermal, solar, even EV where it works well. But I dont like the way they are going about the rapid change, penalizing avg folks by forcing adoption at higher costs.

Same set up we have. Go Au Pair or something it was called, interviewed several, wife picked a gal from South Africa. She also liked one from Belize but her English was broken and so was our Spanish lol. We have twin boys, so for both to go to daycare would have been $1300-1400/mo EACH, and that is assuming you could even find an opening....two openings. We got the recommendation from a friend who has had several, all very good experiences, I guess one was not great, but the others have been really good, the one they have now is also from South Africa. They have kept Au Pairs for longer than we plan to, I think their kids are 5 and 7, and they love her. Its funny because the parents are both push overs, but the Au Pair actually keeps the kids in line and they love her haha. They listen better to the Au Pair than they do the parents lol. There is also some other stipulation that we have to pay for her to take one class at a community college or something I dont remember, its a couple hundred bucks, insignificant. Main thing was, its at least SOME savings vs daycare, kids stay in the home, au pair helps out at home, dont have to worry about being on a waiting list for a possible opening at a daycare, and then potentially not having both boys at the same daycare! and the time flexibility was the biggest.

Generations ago, it was a given that the wife would be a "homemaker" and stay home with the kids. Now, in my generation, women staying home is frowned upon, they look at it as insulting and has a negative vibe, "just a stay at home mom". When I was a kid, my mom worked...a lot. My best friend's mom was a realtor, but was really a stay at home mom. Vacation days from school, she took us to the science museum, came along on class field trips, forgot your book at home? No problem she would run it to school, weird sporting events, she was the driver, spend the night as his house? In the morning its homemade pancakes and eggs for breakfast! sooo many perks and I thought it was awesome and was a little jealous. If you went on a date today and told the girl you someday want a wife that stays home and raises kids, there is a better than 50% chance she would get up and walk out. Somewhere the culture (feminism maybe, dunno) that changed and portrays this as a negative and I've always viewed it as a positive if its financially feasible. Thats the other part of it, even if the wife (or husband for that matter) would be amenable to staying home, most people either need or want the extra income, even if after childcare, the net take home is insignificant. Also as mentioned the career progression etc. I have an aunt that was a huge marketing pro, some well known ads etc. Left the workforce to raise the kids, home schooled them, she is very artistic and looking at her previous work, was very impressive. She rose very fast on the ladder when she was in the workforce. The problem is, she has been out of the workforce for maybe 2 decades. Now she would like to get back in. Presents problems. Shes out of touch with the current "trends". Some of the work she has done for her portfolio is ridiculously dated and not "cool". Frankly...its lame. This wouldnt be a problem if, at this age she was at the exec level, she would have younger motivated grads to manage etc. But she is now starting at the bottom, competing against these kids and she's getting smoked...unless some firm looking to hire specifically caters to AARP customers. Shes just be out of the game too long. So Im afraid her career was fast and short, resulting in a couple of framed ads/posters that were used nationally, hanging in the downstairs family room of their home. Not saying her course of action was wrong, she ended up being the leader of the area home school association or group or whatever its called, both kids are at big name schools working on PhD's in STEM fields, she did a great job. Maybe if she had worked in a different field it wouldnt be as hard, but any industry after being gone for even a single decade, soo much changes, technology, best practices etc. For sure though, advertising/marketing, if you havent been in the game and stayed relevant, to go from being a step away from partner, to the bottom with the recent college grads and off trend, you have no chance, she mise well go work at a coffee shop.

Costco also sells great Wagyu at a great price! One of their "luxury" items available that has been written about extensively. https://ca.style.yahoo.com/costco-carrying-worlds-most-expensive-161700818.html Costco offers some of the best of the best wagyu beef. Wagyu typically refers to a specific breed of cow from Japan and has a reputation for having some of the most flavorful, marbled beef in the world. It's also known for being the most expensive—starting at around $250 per pound. The name is typically misused by imitators trying to hop on the bandwagon, but Costco's Wagyu is the real deal. They import their A5 Wagyu (the highest quality distinction available) from the Kagoshima Prefecture in Japan. They offer several different cuts at steep discounts. For example, their thinly sliced striploin is sold for $99.99 a pound, less than half the price at specialty butcher shops

Could also have kids later than previous generations (also a trend) that way your early years are spent socking as much as possible away to get a large chunk put to work, get a jump on getting to "hockey stick" territory, later in life earnings go up and the expense of childcare is not such a large percentage of your monthly net. Sometimes this is planned, sometimes its not. But if you are young, earnings are the lowest they will be in your career (theoretically) and a large percentage, or even majority of your earnings or that of your partner is going to childcare that puts a tremendous damper on how much you are able to put away and you lose out via mind numbing opportunity cost.

We went with a foreign Au Pair. Was cheaper than daycare by a couple hundred a month, but the real "value" is in the flexibility, no need to take and pick up from a location outside the home. can set their hours as you wish, up to 46/week I believe and if you do the math, it works out to be like $8/hr. Work hours can change week to week so if parents want to plan a getaway they can for an evening etc. Also, they can watch more than one child, and thats when the savings really pile up, rather than paying for two kids in daycare. Childcare costs are staggering no matter how you slice it.

I share the same way of thinking as @thepupil, if you're top 5% of income you should be pretty comfortable. Combine that with taste/spending habits that are less than the avg top 5% of people and you're even more comfortable. Remove the big ticket expense trap that the majority of people fall into. (Hopefully childcare is done), new expensive vehicle upgrades regularly, other toys, and even if you have a note on your home, hopefully you locked in when rates were unbelievably low, or you've had the note for long enough and area rents have increased exponentially that the payment has became insignificant...you're set. There is also a human tendency to always think "comfortable, wealthy, rich" (chose you're adjective) is just a "little bit more". Tendency to think just a little bit more and then you'd REALLY not have to worry. EX: $500k → $1M $1M is alright but you'd need $2M to really not have to worry $2M but you dont feel rich/wealthy, but think those with $5M are $5M you know you're doing fine, but you need double digits to really be considered "wealthy" ( >$10M) $10M + and You know you're good, but the real "Wealthy" make 5X what you have as a bonus every year... $100M probably consider yourself up there...but you're not in the Billionaires club Billions...and then you start playing the "list" game, jockeying for position So like @Jaygo said, its all relative, and thats human nature. To me personally, when you can conservatively cover all your living expenses via passive income/investments, and it allows you to participate in the activities you enjoy regularly without feeling like you have to be concerned or super mindful of spend within reason..then I'd say thats it. If you're activities are sitting in a canoe, camping and fishing...thats quite different than if you "need" to have a six figure yearly country club membership and dine out every night @ a couple hundred $ a pop. I honestly dont find the specific number as interesting as the human psychology of it all. When someone feels comfortable, take the foot off the gas, transition from building to spending/enjoying..the ability to say, thats enough. Thats different for everyone and there are many influences, including childhood, social circle etc. If "wealthy/rich/top 5%" in your area is $250k/year...but your closest cohorts are all making $50k/year and you're pulling down $100k...you're the "rich" guy/friend and you might not feel rich but your circle is going to disagree. This can be a challenge personally, the majority of my circle comparatively, I feel a certain way...but there are a handful that make me feel inept. Depends on who you chose to use as a baseline. Hard to remember that those few making me feel inept, if used as a baseline for 99% of people would make them feel the same.

I would SP500 ETF, set and forget. No need for crystal ball, a lot can change over 20 years, look at the popular names from 20 years ago, majority have fallen from grace or are not even around any more, even those thought to be a slam dunk at the time for long term hold. Technology and industry changes and will continue to do so, business will look very very different 2 decades from now. We havent even really seen the impact of AI on business yet and there will be winners and losers. For ease of "management" and not knowing what the future holds, I'd follow Warrens advice in this instance and use an ETF SP500. Also, not to be morbid, but if you start a portfolio for your son, that needs a lot of "tending" and heaven forbid, something happens to you along the way and you are no longer around to advise/manage and it sits there, thats a risk IMO. With SP500 ETF there is no risk, it can sit there for the next 50 years with no changes necessary or at least as long as it takes for your son to figure out how to manage it intelligently. Im in a similar boat, and these are the things I have considered. What can I guarantee will be around for as long as its needed, takes the least amount of hands on involvement in the event that Im no longer around. Also, with such a long horizon, you dont have to shoot for the moon on returns, with enough time (and he will have a good jump on the majority of people) you dont need mind blowing returns yearly to grow to a decent size. Play with a returns calculator, or read articles on retirement saving that show the difference between someone starting to save at say 25 fresh out of college without much money, but able to save even $100/mo vs someone who delays and then starts at 30 or so after kids and tries to play catch up, the differences are insane even if you assume the same yearly return, even if you drop the yearly return for the early starter by a couple points per year, still does well. Time in the market is a HUGE advantage and forgives a couple years of lousy returns.

Agreed, the price of the "asset" doesnt matter, neither do rates really because they just extend the term. The same is/has been happening in the boat/RV markets. Auto loan terms of 72mo are becoming more and more common vs previous 60 mo considered "the long option", especially with rates increasing. Boat and RV loan terms are already able to go out 10 years. These will only increase. Might come a time when the traditional 30yr mortgage becomes 35-40. When the majority of your potential buyers (middle class America) wages have not kept up, and in fact are losing purchasing power, prices of goods/materials continuing to rise to maintain profit margins etc, rates rising..the only option is to extend the term in order for them to buy. The entire economy hinges on monthly payments. With manufacturers increasing prices and profit margins and the fed increasing rates, length of the note is the only lever to keep the music playing and the party going.

Agree 100% And the attitudes are changing to reward those who take the marshmallow now, there is no consequence for taking it now and it is encouraged. Even if its not your marshmallow. They want their marshmallow now, they want your marshmallow, and they want the pile..all of it. There is a happy balance and finding it can be hard, both for spenders and savers.

I think China would be the one in the meat grinder if Taiwan puts up even a mediocre defense. Beach landings are archaic, and honestly I think China is smarter than that. IMO China is probably discussing how they can get Taiwan to WANT to re-unite. How to they make it in Taiwan's best interest to WANT to come back under Chinese umbrella. Brute force wont work here IMO, just like Russia would never be successful in holding Ukraine, just like the US in the middle east, you can come in and turn the place into a pile a rubble, sure, beat them into submission, but then spend the next several decades occupying with military and dealing with uprisings, guerilla tactics etc, just not a reasonable or desirable long term plan if the people dont WANT to be occupied. Also, if you're the smallest kid on the playground and getting picked on by the bully, you dont have to start lifting weights and taking karate classes, you just have to be friends with a kid that is as big or bigger/tougher than the bully. This is more Taiwans strategy I think. They would have support of the US and other neighboring countries. China knows this also and thats why I say the brute force tactic seems unlikely, sure threaten it to keep them on their toes and test defenses but the reality is China would get closer to their goal using sugar rather than salt. If there is any possibility at all. I thought Ray Dalio article was interesting and probably accurate on many points. Both sides dont want war and not in best interests, but both sides unwilling to back down, being spurred on by comments it almost becomes a self=fulfilling prophecy and can itself lead to war. both sides should be spending more effort on avoiding conflict and working together rather than posturing and preparing for what the other could do. the best offense is defense they say, pray for peace, prepare for war and all that, but I also worry that once the snowball takes off down the hill, building along the way (and arguably the snowball is already rolling) it can be very very hard to stop. You make a goo point though as to elements that may be there that havent been taken into consideration, in addition to the Taiwanese resolve to fight, the inverse of that is the Chinese will to fight and suffer tremendous casualties as well as those not fighting, dealing with sanctions etc. Xi wants common prosperity and a strong Chinese economy is how he gets that, is the juice worth the squeeze, is the cost of getting Taiwan back worth setting the avg mainlanders life back a decade, upsetting everything else. Dunno, tough to say. How important is Taiwan. Maybe there is a different way to approach it. China plays the long game, chipping away at the US, positioning themselves to control resources around the world until its in the best interests of Taiwan to WANT to join China, and they remove the teeth from the Lion (US) so that Taiwan doesn't have the big/tough friend on the playground. China is much better playing the long game and has the "advantage" of long term leadership that can implement a plan and spend a decade working it without a los in continuity from changing leadership.

Author lost me at “Proposed changes to state’s power market would be costly, and undermine wind and solar”. Wind and Solar, the answer to everyone’s problems, as long as they dont use logic or math…

I agree 100%, thats really what the world is looking for, and what you would THINK everyone would get behind...but there are 2 problems that I think prevent it from happening, maybe ever... The term "centrist politician" has became an Oxymoron! Both sides literally HATE each other, and if you are not 100% riding with them, you are a sell out. A Rhino, or whatever the hell they call a leftie who leans right. Look what they did to Mitch Romney, regardless of what you think of the guy, he was one of the only few who wasnt afraid to buck the right when they bent the knee to Trump and all fell in line. Or Tulsi Gabbard who wasnt afraid to call the Dems out on BS they were pulling. You're either far right/left or they turn their back on you shunned. Other career politicians see this and dont want to be a victim, so they toe the line and fall in. It becomes a cycle and perpetuates the problem. Very very hard to turn that around on either side once that snowball is rolling down the hill. Second, and this is a big one. The type of candidate you describe, Democrat or Republican (because who really cares what party they belong to, if they are truly RATIONAL it shouldnt matter!) would likely never want to run! The best man or woman for the job is the one who would never want it or wouldnt want to get involved in the sh*tshow that it has become. Thats the paradox of politics.

I agree with this, has always been around and arguably MORE rampant. Before the proper days of Pride and Prejudice, you had the Greeks and the Romans and anyone who has looked into history knows that anything went for them, Spartans were the same with their boy toys. We dont watch human gladiators fighting to the death anymore, so I guess that is progression! Im not saying things cant get to extremes, and perhaps some has, but it has always been around, social media and media today in general just makes you more aware of it, you arent listening to a radio anymore or getting everything from a newspaper, and that radio and newspaper isnt giving you straight facts, its a scripted news show that caters to like minded folks based on sensationalism and painting the worse possible picture of the "other side". "If the Mormons and Jehovah's Witness haven't had such success, why would transgenders?" This cracked me up, imagine transgenders going door-to-door!! Oh the uproar!

When my grandfather was a kid they brough their guns to school, nd placed them in the back of the room, it just meant they were going squirrel hunting after class. When i was a kid we had a "cowboy" day at the local fairgrounds as a class trip. I was in kindergarten. (This was midwest also, not Texas etc) Every kid had a straw cowboy hat and wore a bandana with their "brand" that they designed on it. I remember my elementary school principle was also there dressed as a cowboy with a fake Sherriff badge. Over his arm, with the action broke open was an unloaded double barrel shotgun as part of his costume. It was real and I remember asking him about it. That would never fly today. Bombs/explosives = illegal and strict rules for possession and we still have bombings, although they are (thankfully) rare. Yes when comparing the drinking age at 21 to firearms at 18 it makes it seem out of whack. But the other side of that argument is to invert, its possible that the drinking age of 21 isnt doing much either and could still be 18. Indeed there are several countries in the world with a drinking age of 18, and some that it is not even enforced and they dont seem to have the issues that we do in the US. I would say that with regard to alcohol and firearms there seems to be a cultural element there out of whack. What has changed since my grandpa was in elementary school, or since I was? Without getting the root of the problem and addressing mental health issues, drug abuse/treatment etc I dont think you can litigate your way out of the problem. But like I said, if raising the age for firearms to 21 would help I would fully support it. Or other more stringent requirements. I think its more of a cultural problem, mental health, perhaps social media contributes, sensationalism, before when kids were teased or struggling maybe they acted out in a different manner maybe those with mental health issues committed other egregious acts. Nowadays its like they default to thinking about going on shooting spree. I dont know what has changed over the years to cause that. To make them immediately think to find/acquire a gun and go shoot up innocents someplace. I just cant fathom it.

Many other countries with widespread gun ownership also have better provisions for mental health issues. Finland/Switzerland/Norway etc. Look at how they live, they get many things "right" IMO that cant even get discussed in the US and wouldnt have a chance. They are different cultures and mental health overall in the pop is probably better I would imagine in general. (I have no facts to back that up) But looking at the overall happiest countries list, Finland is the reigning champ for half a decade at least and the other Nordic countries are right behind them. I think the problem as far as litigation is concerned is the same as the political divide now. There is no rational/reasonable common sense discussion looking for a solution. Anti-gun folks call everything a "high powered rifle" as if there were any "low" powered rifles. Everything is an "assault rifle, even though any semi automatic rifle fires just as fast as an AR. A Corolla and a Ferrari with the same engine will have the same top speed. Pro-gun folks say, drugs are also illegal and yet there are users on every street corner, if someone wants a firearm they will still get one. There are already provisions to guard against those with prior serious crimes from owning a firearm, they still get them. And ultimately, they worry that if they give an inch it will be the beginning of the gov slowly picking away more and more with added restrictions. I think thats the big one, everyone knows that the gov starts small, and then gradually over the years they want more control etc. We see it in many different areas that they have their fingers in. I also think/I believe polls show, that the avg gun owner DOES support increased regulation. Hell I have a gun safe full of firearms, including "assault rifles" and I dont care what you want to make me do to get one. Doesn't bother me, it wont be worse than hoops you have to jump through to obtain/purchase a suppressor. Backgrounds, cool off periods, fine, doesnt bother me. But I honestly dont think it will help, but if it would make people feel better that SOMETHING is being done, I welcome it. The issue is that when these shooting continue to happen, they will want to take the next step, and the next step, and the next step. I dont have the answer, but I see both sides, and I think the majority of people are for a reasonable/rational attempt/discussion. As with many things, the extreme viewpoints, with neither side willing to give an inch creates a stalemate and nothing gets done. No real desire to reach a compromise and both sides blaming the other. And here we are.

I agree with you, "a fool and their money soon parted". Really what this comes down to is greed right? Never underestimate basic human behavior. There has been A LOT of money lost over the years to "slam dunk, cant lose, get rich quick" pitches to the ignorant/unaware. Probably since humans have been around, in some form. How many people bought "meme stonks" based only on stories of others 3x,4x+ they heard/read with no clue what they were doing. The pumpers already made their money and got out, stocks crater and they are left holding the bag, unwilling to acknowledge they made a mistake and leaving the paper loss, with a hope it might rebound "someday". As long as there are humans, there will be those who are uneducated and vulnerable, and the sharks who are pitching "opportunity" playing on emotions of the weak and taking advantage of the situation. Literally unlimited examples of this with the same underlying story. Hell isnt this the same thing the States realize and take advantage of? For the nominal "investment" you have the chance to be set for life? State lotto anyone? The difference is, they only take a relatively small amount from the the masses $5/$10 for a ticket on the chance to hit it big, rather than someones entire nest egg and leave them destitute. The sums are different, but the basic premise is the same. Its a rigged game in favor of the house aka the state. Revenue in the form of lotto ticket sales, and then even if/when someone wins, the real winner is the state, because the winnings are taxed. Tbh, she says, "what he did is awful, and I dont know how he can live with himself" but IMO she should do some self reflection and say, crooks are gonna crook, I dont know how I could have let that money go so easily and how I was duped". I agree what he did was terrible, and he is a crook, but if it wasnt him, she would have likely fell for another sham, only a matter of time. A lion will always be a threat to the gazelle.

If you are unable to view due to paywall Link here works: https://archive.ph/W35zj