dwy000

Which is why I agree that quotas are wrong. But your point above is exactly why companies had (either stated or unwritten) DEI policies. Because a diversity of backgrounds and opinions was deemed more valuable to the organization as a whole than qualifications alone. Agree any job where diversity is not a factor should be merit based but those jobs tend to be ones where opinions and critical thinking dont come into play. Point being that "most qualified" can often include diversity in what makes them them most qualified.

GPA was a throwaway to describe perceived qualifications. The point is that "qualified" and "value add" is in the view of the organization and a diverse background or viewpoint can be more value add or a better qualification than a statistical comparison. To your point if youre hiring for a marketing role to sell to a broad swath of customers across various backgrounds and income, would you only hire old, white men because they had a couple of years more experience?

The question then comes as to who's decision that is. Tim Cook and Satya have both said that having diverse backgrounds, diverse cultures and diverse points of view are hugely beneficial to the organization as a whole to avoid group think. I fully agree quotas are stupid and counterproductive but having someone with a different opinion or viewpoint that shifts the discussion can make them much more valuable to the organization than having a marginally higher GPA.

Paying higher levels of taxes is a separate argument from deferring taxes. Buffet and Gates are fine raising the tax rates on billionaires even if they defer those payments. Nobody wants to pay more taxes and everybody wants better efficiency of givt spend. But the deficit and debt need to be dealt with and it simply cant be done thru spend reduction alone (without making depression look like fun times).

This isnt counter productive. Growing wealth to give away a significantly larger amount at a later date is just time value of money. The value created by Buffet or Gates during that period is hugely more than the debt the govt undertakes to replace it today.

Stop making things up. Show me one single post I've ever done bellyaching about "deficit increasing tax cuts for the rich". I'm bellyaching about a President, representing a party that used to promote fiscal prudence, implementing the stupidest tariff policy in history and increasing a deficit he was supposed to reduce.

Because when he ignores the law and the constitution, even if you agree with the concept he manages to fuck it up so badly that we are worse off instead of better. NOBODY is against improving government efficiency. I wanted this one badly! But then doing it through all the DOGE crap he not only didn't improve efficiency but with the disruption has made it worse. A more friendly business environment? Yes please!!! And then he rolls out the most convoluted and incompetent tariff plan imaginable. Not to mention that its illegal. Reduce the deficit? Damn straight!! Oh, but now its massively larger even with tariff revenue. Release the Epstein files? Nail those pedophiles, whoever they are! Oh, but now he chooses tk threaten his own party members to do anything to prevent their release. Fight crime? No, let's do performative theater instead of anything long term and meaningful. Even if you support every policy, the complete and utter incompetence is just astounding.

that certainly helps explain why returns are nothing to write home about. If one third or more of your assets are in cash it's tough to beat a rising market.

I know, right?

Ive said in this thread multiple times that one of the policies of Trump i supported.was reducing waste! And I've also said that the way he has done it is the most incompetent and ineffective you could imagine. This Nationsl Guard deployment for public theater is the perfect case in point.

If this was about dealing with gangs, Washington DC would not have been the first city. And using uniformed military in the most public places is not doing anything to deal with gangs. Is there really anyone who truly believes that if you had $20m to spend on urban crime reduction, the best way to do that would be to send troops into highly touristed areas for a couple of weeks? Honestly?

Soldiers enforcing laws over the objection of local officials and population in a performative effort for a couple of weeks in selective locations is definitely a waste of tax payer money

Your skills at hyperbole are astounding. Not once have i said a single one of those things in this discussion. Stick to the current topic my friend.

Who's shifting goal posts? The entire time I have consistently pointed out that this is just theater and not effective or efficient crime reduction. On our tax dollars

That would be true if it was long term, coordinated and done by police. You have better on the ground visibility, but all I've seen from local restaurants and businesses is complaints that having soldiers walking around with guns is not helping pedestrian tourism. Either way, what happens after 3 weeks when they leave?

Well this is correct. If you actually want to reduce crime you do what you and Costanza suggest - fund coordinated efforts with local and federal agencies long term. Putting soldiers in public areas for 3 weeks is a complete waste of tax money.

So you think the soldiers are going to Washington Park area. Or anywhere in South Chicago??? No way. They dont get media coverage there. It will be like Washington DC where they patrol the high tourist, low crime areas with the highest visibility. Why? Because its not about reducing crime. Its about theater.

If u flood a city with soldiers of course its going to drop - while theyre there. If you want long term, sustained improvement in crime it doesnt take a genius to understand this is doing nothing. Crime had been dropping for years already. And why not in cities with higher crime rates?

Nobody is ever going to argue that crime isnt an issue. At any level. But to your point, some analysis and strategic direction is needed to deal with it longer term on a coordinated basis. But that's not even close to what's happening. Whats happening now is not helping because its just theater. The locals dont want it. Businesses dont want it. Local government doesnt want it. And local law enforcement doesnt want it. The irony is, all those groups would openly welcome dealing with crime on a sustained long term basis. But that's not what's happening because that requires thought, strategy and time. This is theater.

Then why not focus on cities with higher crime rates? Why use the National Guard when there are federal agencies already operating there? Yes you can reduce crime by flooding the streets with the military but thats not a long term solution, is not what the locals want and is a waste of taxpayer money. And its not being focused on the highest crime areas. And why not 5 years ago when crime was higher?

Which, once again, is why you dont have to live there. Let the locals make their own beds and live with the results. Why should my tax dollars be used on it? Especially when they dont want the help. Theater.

Which is exactly why its a local problem for locals to deal with. If they need or want federal support they can ask for it. Thats not happening.

Which is why you dont live or vote there. The crime rate is higher in many cities that aren't being targeted. Leave it to the locals to police themselves with their own tax dollars.

Its really easy to reduce crime in any area if you want to flood it with soldiers and police. The question is who pays for that and who gets to decide the right levels. What we have now is nothing more than theater. The local populations, local businesses, local politicians and local police forces dont want the federal military running around - especially when crime rates were already dropping to multi year lows. The fact that its not focused on the cities with the highest crime rates tells you its nothing more than theater. And theater paid for with our tax dollars.

Given where the USD appears headed you can probably add to that yield by buying it with dollars.