meiroy

The world just got a little bit better...

Buffett is going to be 90 in August. If he already decided on who's going to replace him, then this person should be controlling majority of investments NOW and not when something happens.

Trigger alert! Doctors hate this trick! I cut my net carbs down to 20 grams/day and all a sudden i lose 40-45lbs in a 16 month period. I didn't even exercise much. My diet is a little heavy on bacon and eggs at the moment. (Eric, to each his/her own. Keto is the way that I keep the weight off. Please play along with this faux meat vs Vegan drama that I am creating.) Going whole foods plant-based would get you the same weight loss while also reversing cardiovascular disease, which you are not getting on the all-meat diet. If weight loss were the only goal I'd rather eat the bacon and eggs like you. But just remember, the arteries that feed your erections are much smaller than the coronary arteries, so guess what's gonna go first. I don't think my blood work has ever been so good. Thank you for thinking of my junk. I think going whole foods plant-based would get me depressed. Just can't imagine skipping meat, cheese, and seafood. Honestly, I wish I can do a Vegan diet. I doubt my body is built for that. But then I said the same thing about carbs and now I feel much better on a higher fat diet. #All_Out_Keto_Vs_Vegan_War (Joking) About the cheese, a real somewhat-aged dutch Gouda cheese has vitamin k2 which assists in removing calcium from your blood vessels. It's either that or eating Natto... Also, real grass-fed butter has vitamin k2. I've considered going vegetarian but the concern is about lacking certain nutrients, like Creatine and all these other things which we might have no clue about and you can't even blood test for.

How to get kids to eat veggies based on my own kids(thus having an insignificant statistical meaning): 0. Are YOU having lots of veggies or are you eating processed crap? Your kids see and smell what you eat. 1. Have as much variety as possible, see what they like. Steamed, fried, or baked. Salad. Mixed. Have them help you prepare the meal, wash the vegetables or cut them, etc. Whatever works. 2. While making sure they receive a sufficient amount of calories, reduce sugar/sweet as much as possible. If a kid is having a massive amount of sugar via sugar covered breakfast or bread, veggies would taste like crap. 3. A general tip: one can have great nutritional food for kids without any cooking, e.g. some nuts, egg with salt on it, gouda cheese, a tablespoon of peanut butter. Takes a second to prepare. I hope Eric starts a thread about being a Vegan, under Strategies.

You are right, Japan even came up with this: According to this, clustering in Churches should definitely be avoided. In addition, in Japan and South Korea, it is so obvious and acceptable that everyone should be wearing a mask it wasn't even included in this poster. "Photos of the event taken inside the church showed the crowd shoulder to shoulder, with very few people appearing to wear masks.". Aren't you tired of your trolling?

Again, simplifying the situation. Yes, it slows down transmission. But then what? Should we be in the lockdown until a vaccine is developed? That could be anywhere between 18 months to forever, based on the initial estimation of experts. Then there are countries like S. Korea, where they never had any lockdown as we have it here or in Europe. Yet, they kept the virus under control. I think that's a strong sign that there are other much more effective measures than the lockdown. To some effect yes. The fact is that there's a killer virus going around. It spreads and kills. Doesn't care about what you think, how you feel, how you vote. It does not give a fuck. So reality has suddenly changed. There is no normal anymore. The virus looks at the normal and laughs. So effectively there are two options: a soft lockdown - which you're not gonna like, or a hard lockdown - which you're really not gonna like. Normal isn't on the list. A soft lockdown is basically the South Korea model. Masks, sanitizer, social distancing, huge test and trace. You don't get to pack bars and do whatever you like. Life isn't normal. SK thought they could do more normal, opened clubs, had one superspreader event and was like "that's it, no more clubs". If you don't want the soft lockdown you get the hard lockdown. That's the problem with America. It is not responsible enough to go through a soft lockdown because they are "special" so they want normal. Well you can't have normal. It's interesting that places that had bad outbreaks in the north east are not seeing pops. I don't know why, but maybe they were scared enough by what happened that they really want to go with the soft lockdown. Whereas other places that didn't partake in the carnage are not at that point yet. Just to let you know, all those things you mentioned regarding S. Korea help, but the most effective measure that S. Korea was able to take was put those infected in a hospital and won't release you until you test negative. Yes, you heard that right. They don't just ask you to self-quarantine at home for two weeks. Now they are debating whether they should not hospitalize those who test positive but show only mild symptoms. In China, I believe that they do something similar, or put you in a house arrest. With this kind of measure in place, you can let people go to work, dine at restaurants, go to schools, etc. and manage the transmission... Now you can ask, why can't the US do this? Well, I'd say two main things are: 1) their health care system is not designed for that kind of measure (fewer hospital beds, cost/insurance issues), and 2) many people will not abide by that kind of "hard" quarantine measures. Some people might not even get tested because they don't want to get locked in a hospital. What could Trump have done to fix these things? (I don't want to defend him, but just being realistic here) So my feeling is... No matter what the US politicians could have done, you wouldn't have been able to stop this virus. Especially given its size, connections with the rest of the world, and the two points above, etc.. There are inherent reasons why the spread could not be stopped. You could wish and vent all you want how the US admin. could have prevented this crisis, but in reality, I don't think it was possible. You are right, this virus doesn't give a fuck, and you might just have to see it run its course. So basically almost every developed country and most developing countries were able to get their outbreak under some sort of control but the almighty US can't do anything? As I've said. you get soft lockdown or hard lockdown. There is no option C. You don't like or can't fathom option A, well then... option B it is. Again, look at the daily death rate or cases/test ratio. It's not really exploding... And you are missing my point... I'm saying that it's not as simple as soft lockdown vs. hard lockdown. S. Korea did a soft lockdown but together with putting every infected person into a hospital. It's not whether people like it or not, but the US simply cannot afford to take that kind of approach. The correct word is "incapable". For example, the US can surely afford to manufacture and provide all its residents with surgical masks. Even if it does, plenty of people will not comply. Why? Because currently, it is incapable, incompetent, and impotent. It's not a question of money. It's a question of who.

Lol... Something else that’s “weird”—the mortality graph is shifted to the right when compared to the case graph...almost like mortality lags cases and cases can be seen as an early warning sign of where mortality might be headed...hmmm... Yes, deaths lag cases but that doesn't seem to be the case. Which makes it even more impressive.

If it's due to treatment having improved than that's pretty good.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-wirecard-recover-its-missing-billions

It's good to see you guys are still hopeful. Am I being overly pessimistic in thinking the battle was already lost quite a while ago?

I think the burn rate on stimulus is currently $1T every 5 weeks or so. A $1T infrastructure bill that takes years to work off is in monthly terms so much less that it hardly makes up for CARES. It’s still a good idea, but it will hardly make a dent except in certain industries. When there is a real economic need for certain infrastructure, then the new inf. or improved inf. will have a positive economic impact beyond those (companies/individuals) that received the money to construct it. As far as numbers go, that's the big question, how far will they go... something is better than nothing. If it bothers people so much that "people get money for nothing", you can always have people dig ditches then fill 'em back up ;) (edit: apparently it's holes, not ditches. sounds better. too) edit 2: https://econ.economicshelp.org/2008/07/john-maynard-keynes-great-economists.html#:~:text=Keynes%20described%20this%20as%20economic,and%20actively%20stimulate%20the%20economy.&text=%22The%20government%20should%20pay%20people,and%20then%20fill%20them%20up.%22 "Keynes and Great Depression It was during the 1930s, that Keynes' really made his mark as an economist, helping to develop a whole new branch of Economics. When the Great Depression hit, with unprecedented ferocity, economists were at a loss to explain its causes and how to overcome it. Prevailing economic orthodoxy stuck to the old classical view that Markets will clear in the long run. At the height of the crisis, the fledgling Labour government was told by Treasury officials that the government must balance the budget to survive the depression. This effectively meant increasing taxes and cutting unemployment benefits. Keynes described this as economic madness and argued for the exact opposite. He argued in a recession of this magnitude, it was necessary for the government to intervene and actively stimulate the economy. Apart from a few half hearted attempts such as the new deal, Keynes' policies were largely ignored in the UK and US; and high levels of unemployment persisted until the start of the second world war."

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/06/how-inequality-is-deepening-the-coronavirus-recession.html#comments A good read. "But the gross inequities of the modern U.S. economy have deepened the COVID-19 recession. If more of America’s economic activity were geared toward meeting the needs of the median worker — and less toward serving the whims of the typical banker — then the pandemic-induced collapse in high-end consumption would have brought fewer jobs down with it. Meanwhile, if wages had kept pace with productivity gains over the past half-century, America would have entered this crisis with a larger economy and less financially vulnerable working class. In ordinary times, our nation’s overreliance on the investment and consumption of the fickle rich depresses growth and corrodes democracy. In this extraordinary time, it is directly immiserating millions. We can and should build a better economy, one that keeps workers afloat in all seasons — no matter how choppy the waters or low the tide."

Well, let's hope they don't, or at least go ahead with the massive infrastructure projects. In addition, some of this trickle-up surely had some positive impact on small businesses which would then support households, and so on.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this tragic event and this individual, just based on life experience: It's worth mentioning that depression is a real disease and people with this disease are more likely to take their own lives. If you know anyone who might be suffering from depression, try and make sure they receive treatment. This is especially true in these unique times when stress or any stressful event might push someone over the edge.

When someone who is quite rich gets an additional marginal dollar, it usually does not go into the real economy. It is easy to see why. For someone who is poor or above that, any additional dollar of income will go straight into the real economy and benefit the real economy* They will buy food, or pay for rent, or pay for gas etc. This means that when there's high inequality as there is now, there is a material negative impact on consumption and the economy. Fundamental economists who are 100% supply-side, regardless of the circumstances would of course disagree with this but this is exactly why a fiscal policy which considers *the current economic circumstances* should benefit households/consumers. In the current environment, trickle-down is not going to work in order to rebalance the economy. It has to be trickle up. * in the current globalized world, this benefit might go to an external economy, as has been happening.

If Covid 19 is mainly a vascular issue, as some argue, then the first thing you'd want to do is provide antiinflammatories + anticoagulants and get rid of the clots. So, if this is how you see it and you're at home sick you could take (IANAD, not a recommendation) aspirin + omega 3, for example. BTW vitamin D deficiency is linked with "stiffer arteries and impaired vascular function". And of course, don't be old, obese, diabetic etc. all not ideal when it comes to blood vessels health.

So much hate and intolerance! Unlike you, I'm intolerant towards viruses.

I've created a thread in the politics section, hopefully discussion of flags can move there. https://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/politics/deck-chairs-on-the-titanic-us-civil-war-edition/ I think it's really inappropriate to make accusations at other board, especially if they aren't well founded and they almost never seem well founded founded to me. On the other hand, many people do believe that many varieties of self-loathing exist, so though I discourage people from making aspersions at other members, dismissing the concept out of hand doesn't seem appropriate either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hating_Jew Also of interest is Roy Cohn, Trump's attorney and political mentor, who not only was the driving force behind McCarthyism, but also is widely accused of the persecution of homosexuals, despite his only sexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn The virus does impact the brain and cause neurological symptoms. If this thread wasn't so full of political garbage and members insulting each other, we could probably have an intelligent discussion on the topic. You just linked to a Wikipedia article on the origin of self-hating jews.

The coronavirus will go away or we'll learn to live with it. There's a bigger virus now in plain sight.

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go even though it offends group Y. That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols. Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there. I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor? Spoken like someone who's never spent any quality time in NW FL or lower AL. It's not a matter of "enjoying" the confederate flag. It's a symbol of racism & those who fly it are making their feelings known. If you doubt what I'm saying, I invite you to visit & I'll take you on a tour of our beautiful beaches. It's a symbol of racism to you. That doesn't mean they see it way. Why be so intolerant? Why remove asbestos? Why not continue using lead pipes? Let's continue serving 40 oz cups of Cola to children. White hoods should be allowed like all Halloween costumes. Chloro-fluoro-carbons should be used again, because the hole in the ozone layer has closed. The world changes, moral standards change, slowly we all become more enlightened! Do you guys still call your female staff or colleagues "sweetie" or "honey"? Cheers! A) showing your "southern pride" by wearing a flag isn't hurting anyone. Even if it did hurt people, the moral value of that is subjective. Plenty of societies allow people to hurt (or kill) others without punishment. B) We've become more enlightened? You really believe that? If you're an atheist such a thing as moral progress most certainly does not exist. There is an illusion of progress but it's really just personal opinion (much like Hitler's version of progress was an illusion). It's irrational to believe such a thing exists because there is no evidence. Do you honestly think you have more "moral insight" than the slave owners did? Why on earth would you think that? Did Hitler also have more "moral insight" than you? Perhaps if the Nazis would have won WWII, you would be thanking Hitler for his version of "enlightenment" too (well, maybe not for Indians but others might have thought that!)? Or perhaps if the Confederacy had won, Americans would be thinking Davis for the "good work" he did too? So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us. You are not a conservative or an individual with a good moral character. What you are, is a religious fundamentalist, similar to what you would find in Iran or Afghanistan. Do you care to attack my argument rather than me as a person? Why do you say I am a "religious fundamentalist?" I don't even go to church. But, I really fail to see how there is some higher moral standard if atheism is accurate. No. Because: 1. You are a troll 2. You are a religious fundamentalist.

If we're going to ban confederate flags, you should also ban any other flags that might offend people. It's not right to censor one view just because group X gets offended but allow another flag to go even though it offends group Y. That's bullshit. There are plenty of instances of banned flags because of what they represent. Throughout most of the eastern block you cannot display flags with the hammer and sickle for example. In Germany it is illegal to display the Third Reich flag or any nazi symbols. These laws are mainly for a few whackaoos because no organization in their right mind over there would ever display one of these flags or symbols. Keep in mind that these were actually the official country flags for these countries. In some cases for a long period of time and they are banned. The idea of banning the battle flag of a bunch of traitors that started an open insurrection against a country that led to the deadliest war that country has ever experienced isn't that out there. I'm not a fan of the confederate flag but I see no reason why the folks who enjoy that flag should be discriminated against if one is really "tolerant." We're not talking about Germany here. We're talking about the US. Would you be in favor of then, saying banning something like the flag of Japan because we were at war with them at one time and that they bombed Pearl Harbor? Spoken like someone who's never spent any quality time in NW FL or lower AL. It's not a matter of "enjoying" the confederate flag. It's a symbol of racism & those who fly it are making their feelings known. If you doubt what I'm saying, I invite you to visit & I'll take you on a tour of our beautiful beaches. It's a symbol of racism to you. That doesn't mean they see it way. Why be so intolerant? Why remove asbestos? Why not continue using lead pipes? Let's continue serving 40 oz cups of Cola to children. White hoods should be allowed like all Halloween costumes. Chloro-fluoro-carbons should be used again, because the hole in the ozone layer has closed. The world changes, moral standards change, slowly we all become more enlightened! Do you guys still call your female staff or colleagues "sweetie" or "honey"? Cheers! A) showing your "southern pride" by wearing a flag isn't hurting anyone. Even if it did hurt people, the moral value of that is subjective. Plenty of societies allow people to hurt (or kill) others without punishment. B) We've become more enlightened? You really believe that? If you're an atheist such a thing as moral progress most certainly does not exist. There is an illusion of progress but it's really just personal opinion (much like Hitler's version of progress was an illusion). It's irrational to believe such a thing exists because there is no evidence. Do you honestly think you have more "moral insight" than the slave owners did? Why on earth would you think that? Did Hitler also have more "moral insight" than you? Perhaps if the Nazis would have won WWII, you would be thanking Hitler for his version of "enlightenment" too (well, maybe not for Indians but others might have thought that!)? Or perhaps if the Confederacy had won, Americans would be thinking Davis for the "good work" he did too? So overall my point is this: if atheism is accurate, it is quite silly to act like there is some higher moral standard we should be aiming for (after all, atheists only believe in things with evidence and there is no evidence for a higher moral standard so its best to be neutral on such matters). Likewise, it's silly to act like slavery, racism (or anything else) is "bad" because the people committing those acts have just as much moral insight as any of us. You are not a conservative or an individual with a good moral character. What you are, is a religious fundamentalist, similar to what you would find in Iran or Afghanistan.

John C. Malone -- you better be on his side.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/06/01/spacexs-success-is-one-small-step-man-one-giant-leap-capitalism/ "The cost to NASA for launching a man into space on the space shuttle orbiter was $170 million per seat, compared with just $60 million to $67 million on the Dragon capsule. The cost for the space shuttle to send a kilogram of cargo into to space was $54,500; with the Falcon rocket, the cost is just $2,720 — a decrease of 95 percent. And while the space shuttle cost $27.4 billion to develop, the Crew Dragon was designed and built for just $1.7 billion "

Right but this argument is something I’m not as convinced about at the moment. For one thing I’m not certain what distortions he is talking about. It’s true that a lot of money has gone into various startups with questionable prospects with regard to future profitability for example but was that really a net loss for society? I’m not so sure, given that consumers have almost certainly benefited, their workers presumably learned useful skills on the job, at least some of technologies that they developed are sure to remain valuable, etc. Yes, I agree. A lot of good came out of the 2000 tech bubble and in retrospect, seeing how internet/software/cloud so far has changed the world it had some justification for it. It wasn't all bad. Same for biopharmaceuticals. It seems that when there's the combination of high liquidity and somewhat low-interest rates, money flows into high-risk sectors as the low hanging fruit is quickly gone. Regarding capital misallocation, yeah it depends where it goes... right now if it goes into infrastructure in the USA it will have great benefit for various reasons. It's not that higher debt is a necessity for a slight increase in growth in developed countries, but rather it depends on how it used. The USA has been addicted to Ayn Rand and trickle-down wealth which is one of the main causes of the current imbalance.

https://www.edie.net/news/10/UK-smashes-solar-generation-record/#:~:text=Solar%20use%20in%20the%20UK,11%20consecutive%20days%20without%20coal. "Solar use in the UK broke an all-time peak generation record on Monday (20 April), accounting for almost 30% of UK electricity demand, with the UK also operating for more than 11 consecutive days without coal. At 12:30 on Monday, solar generation reached a peak of 9.68GW, according to the Sheffield Solar live PV generation tracker. The previous record was set at 9.55GW recorded on 13 May 2019. At the time of the peak, solar was meeting almost 30% of UK electricity demand. Generating conditions are currently favourable, in part due to lower than usual levels of pollution as a result of the coronavirus lockdown." -- Yes, Singapore is a tiny little city island but that cable idea just seems bizarre. Maybe it's a political decision as they do not want to be excessively dependent on Malaysia? Still...