Moonbox

@sharkman https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/nasdaq-michael-burry-wrong-sell-dip-buyers-big-short-2023-3

I would say that with Trudeau down 5.5%, and Poilievre only up 2%, this is more about Trudeau faceplanting than anything remarkable that PP has done.

Can't argue with that really, but anyone managing a household budget understands that the bill comes in eventually. All someone needs to do is present a reasonable alternative and the Liberal government will come toppling down. The Conservatives haven't done that yet, and PP hasn't either, though that doesn't mean he can't. Agreed. A dose of Harper pragmatism is necessary, and firing up the base isn't the way he's going to win.

You can sum up most of myata's posts in general as "Everything is BAD. We need to do SOMETHING." There are lots of people that do care, as evidenced by the utter devastation the Liberals faced in the 2022 Ontario election after 15+ years of provincial Liberal incompetence. That's the blueprint for taking Justin down, whenever someone wants to gets serious about it.

Show your mommy. She's the only one these sorts of pointless comments are going to impress. Nobody was arguing in favor of communism, but don't let that stop you from tossing out your standard strawman to argue against. The point was that false economies are not rare at all, and that free enterprises themselves are naturally inclined to create beneficial ones wherever and however they can (like with monopolies, for example). This should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. If arguing even basic econ theory like this is on the table, I'm not going to bother reading further. I'll spare myself the boredom.

I'm offended that they didn't mention the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I really love outrage politics. 🙄

Your example showed nothing. You dropped a bunch of random numbers, and anyone can do that about anything. Right...because there's nothing changing in the economy beyond minimum wage hikes. 😑 Or when the government has had to step in and break them up. You're so wrong here it's not even really worth digging into. The concept of a truly free market is only a theoretical ideal, and has never and will never exist. Because if it's not livable, it perpetuates the cycle of poverty. Not being able to save money and build wealth is a recipe for hopelessness (see our Reserves), and if businesses can only survive paying what amounts to slave-wages, they're neither viable nor particularly helpful for the economy in the first place. Regardless, minimum wage hasn't really changed (after adjusting for inflation) since the 1970's, so we're not even really talking about real increases.

The example was irrelevant, because the point was that wage increases don't inflate prices enough to erode the wage increases. Sure, they might inch up, but they're not erasing the wage growth. That's really not how it works. False economies abound everywhere, including (and especially in) a theoretically absolute "free market". Here's where you should be focusing the argument, on how raising minimum wage can depress the job market if it's too high, especially for lower-skilled and younger workers. It's still not that simple though, because these sorts of policies aren't merely meant to affect absolute minimum wage, but to also encourage a trickle-up of wage increases on the lower end of the spectrum. The polarization of wealth is part of the problem these policies aim to tackle, but if we're raising minimum wages and making it easy for companies to outsource goods and services delivery to China and India, we're not really solving any problem. This is a multi-faceted problem. Ideally, sure, but then there's always a need for low-skill services labor and the wage should be livable. We also can't just "suddenly" educate and train all of these people anyways. These are longer-term solutions, and delivering the programs where and when they're needed isn't as easy as it sounds. Completely different problem, and not really relevant.

No, now he's the boss, and has put his KGB background to good use confusing all of the dumdums like you. No, the collapse of the Soviet Union is what restored the right to worship in Russia. Putin's done the best he could to control it however, installing a former KGB agent and informer as the Patriarch. What a hero 😄👌.

It's never a 1:1 correlation. Rent doesn't automatically go up for poor people apartments because their wages went up 10%, and even if it did, they'd still be better off as long as their rent wasn't 100% of their income (which it isn't). Localized inflation due to federal minimum wage increases is pretty awkward concept. Regardless, the implication that keeping wages low for poor people is actually helping them is almost a meme now. You can't ignore the link between wages and jobs, but the correlation is far more elastic than folks making this argument would imagine, and that's ignoring the fact that the absolute job numbers aren't the goal. Livable wages are, and if we're not providing those then it's up to social assistance, in which case the state is supporting these people instead of the companies that are actually benefiting from the labor.

That doesn't really make sense. If their minimum age increase doesn't affect the overall inflation picture much, as you seem to agree, but their wages noticeably increase, they're evidently better off. If we're talking about the same study, the University of Washington concluded in their second study that the increases improved low-income wages, contradicting their first study.

Except give them more income and establish a basic living for them, which is what it aims to accomplish. A 10% minimum wage increase obviously doesn't cause 10% inflation, so this is kind of a silly point. All? No, but then this, like the carbon taxes, ends up being a small part of the overall inflation calculation.

I don't really know. For coffee it's pretty simple - there's never any reason for scalding hot coffee. For tea I guess it's supposed to be brewed at upwards of 100 degrees, and then steep for over 5 minutes, but then what does that do to the lineup? I guess you don't serve it at drive-throughs? That one will be interesting to see.

Fair enough. Didn't read the whole thread.

I don't think that's right: Worked fine for me.

Jeremy McDougall sounds like a loser, and threatening to sue for $10,000 is pathetic. Even if it was $100,000, I suspect there wouldn't be any lawyers who'd take that case on contingency. 😄

That's funny, because it's literally what I do for a living. This whole time you've been larping as if you know wtf you're talking about, you've actually been speaking to a trained and educated professional. 🤣👌

and yet you're the one that just moments ago embarrassed yourself trying to tell me I brought up the Nasdaq, when it was you. If you could manage to trim your posts and respond without the constant bluster about how much you're "winning" the thread (that nobody but you or I is reading anymore), you'd have a much easier time keeping your thoughts straight, and you'd also make it less apparent how fragile your ego is. 🙃 Then they're probably bad investors, because that's dumb. I'm intelligent enough not to be -50% in a -20% market, which is an exceedingly low bar given you can say the same about the overwhelming majority of investors and pensioners (just apparently and unsurprisingly not your friends/acquaintances). The majority of do-it-yourselfers do, but that's because they've no clue what they're doing. That's why mutual funds, etfs, indices and financial planners exist. It's a sign of intelligence to acknowledge what you don't know, but maybe you'll get there some day.

Because the Nasdaq is only a tiny portion of the overall stock market (one of the riskiest parts) and the broader indices aren't down anywhere close to that? 🙃 You'd have to be a retard gambler to have lost 50% in this market, but these are the people you are meeting, so I guess it's very possible. 🤷‍♂️ Not unless they're brainlets, because that means not only did they invest 100% into the Nasdaq (which nobody should ever really do, and certainly not pensioners), it also means they picked nothing but the worst performing Nasdaq stocks 🤡👍 Yeah it's almost like you can go back and read people's posts and see what they actually said. Sure, but then there's also valuable intellectual property (like trademarks, licenses, patents etc.) that provide predictable and measurable revenue, which can be easily valuated. Nope. Speculation is ever-present, but the best investors are basing it on data, research and actually interviewing company management, among other things. It's not like the doofus crypto-bros and their useless TA charts. Why would I do that? I can just sell my share and know that retained earnings sitting on the company's balance sheet would be part of the price I get. Thanks for the laughs. This was a funny thread. 🤣

What did? That it crashed into the ground? I guess if a 15-20% drop of the stock market (which it does semi-regularly) means "crashing into the ground", then sure, but then you're just playing with worthless hyperbole. "Some people", like your made up "some people" who lost 50 percent. It's just a different "some people". You didn't. You posted a report that said 40% of the Nasdaq's firms are down 50%, and that's how market downturns work, especially in a niche and speculative growth-oriented index like the Nasdaq. The weak die, the strong survive. Unless you're trying to tell us that these poor pensioners who lost 50% were 100% invested in the worst-performing stocks in the worst-performing index, you're just making shit up. 🤡 Sure, but who's arguing that it didn't? That doesn't make it any less of a zero-sum speculative trash asset, with literally the only thing it's worth is what the next ape might pay for it. No, YOU did. 🤣 YOU linked the article about the Nasdaq, and I responded to it. No, because there's a hard asset there - something real, and tangible and useful. I know you like declaring victory for yourself every second post, but only your mommy cares. Yes, bitcoin goes UP, and bitcoin goes DOWN based on trading, just like the stock market. That's where their similarities end. Publicly listed company have to go through an independent annual audit, so keep telling us how clueless you are please. As a shareholder, you're entitled to your share of the company's earnings, assets and profits. Whether profits get paid out as dividends, or retained as liquid assets, you're still entitled to them, and they get verified. He said that the BoC was ruining the dollar, that crypto currency could reduce the central banks' influence, and that Canadians needed an alternative currency (or rather the freedom of choice for an alternative currency). It doesn't even work as a currency, however, because anything that can swing 50% in value over a few months is a non-starter, and then there's the simple matter that it can't operate at mainstream scale for the foreseeable future.

No, you said the stock market crashed into the ground (hyperbole), then proceeded to worthlessly tell us that "some people" are down 50%. Wow! 🤣👌 Some people are up 100%. Some people are up 400%. Some people are down 38.7623%. Some people are down 3%. Some people are up 5%. I can quote arbitrary useless numbers too. It was 16k to 10.8k (roughly) and it took 7 months to do that, and that works out to less than 33%. In the same timeframe, BTC lost 60% of its value. You chose to compare the Nasdaq, one of the most speculative and volatile stock market indexes out there, and it still has around ~50% of the volatility of Bitcoin. Take a broader, more inclusive index like the S&P, and those numbers look even worse for BTC. Regardless, none of this even really matters because the fundamental difference between any stock market (even the Nasdaq) is that you're getting audited financial statements and you're buying a portion of a company's assets and future cashflow. When you buy Bitcoin, you're buying a digital widget that does nothing, earns nothing, and can only make you money if you find a greater fool to buy it off you at a higher price. More importantly, however, nobody is proposing we use the Nasdaq as an alternative to fiat or central banking, because that would be retarded.

So we go from stock market "crashed into the ground" to some "stock portfolios are down". 🤣 Yeah, "FaCts aNd REaSOnS" Here's the Nasdaq: Down ~25% from its previous (overpriced) high in 2022 (seen above), and only being a niche portion of the overall stock markets. Stock markets CRASHED INTO THE GROUND though...Pensioners (who shouldn't be heavily invested in the nasdaq in the first place) are losing half their portfolios!

It's the same in the US. Also the same in the US, and though most mutual funds are mediocre (and especially in Canada more expensive than they need to be), calling them a straight rip-off is not entirely fair. Here's a more important point to make. Canadian banks are safer and more resilient because of regulation, but also protected from competition by that same regulation and consumers suffer as a result. I think the Canadian system has proven superior over the last 20 years overall, but we definitely have our own problems.

I said it was poorly written and conceived, and in your petty little pea-brain the only thing that this could possibly mean was that I was commenting on the language skills contained in the document, and that the Supreme Court would strike down laws on that basis. You're pathetic. 🤣 You can't even keep the conversation straight. Here's a recap of this specific sub-topic: So you start off telling me I claimed the judges commented on the notwithstanding clause (which I didn't), and then you insisted I go back and reread my posts, which I did, confirming that I didn't, and now your "quote" proving that I did is talking about something completely different. That's funny shit man. 🤣👌 Try not to confuse yourself too much here.

Yeah you never use ad hominem 🙄🙄🙄, only "facts and reasons". Which stock markets are down by "about half"? Are these the "fACTs and ReAsOn" you were referring to? 🤡