Politics

[Rocked and Loaded]

Well, he will be dead too.

And power vacuums in authoritarian governments don’t always get filled cleanly. Especially if there may others in the leadership who aren’t as eager to get a missile up the ass.

Only time will tell.

 

[cwpayton]

I want the coal fired plants to be closed for local environmental reasons, not necessarily to ward off an existential threat. I have been involved in providing emissions monitoring solutions (CEMS) for decades and well aware how much more pollution coal fired plants emit compared to other alternatives.

are you willing to go with out electricity ,when you shut them down, they have shut some down in Nevada and the price of a kilowatt has gone up, if they remove more dams in Washington on the Columbia the price will go sky high, I read one engineers mathematical prediction on the solar panels needed to replace 1 dams energy production, it was in the hundreds of thousands of panels, which by the way arent reliable after 10-12 years, wind mills on the other hand are beautiful to look at, kill birds and whales, due to magnetic interference. by building these huge solar panel fields it also has an effect on the local weather.

 

[Brent in Az]

This sounds boring AF. So why be rich if you are going to live life you are poor. I rather be like Jimmy John and buy a bunch of governors tags.

I'd be lighting cigars with $100 bills

 

[Red Leg]

Because you’re supposed to work? And if you pick a good or service society needs, you’re doing your part while gaining affluence?

Buffet actually likes investing and thinks “toys” are a distraction from his passion. Elon Musk doesn’t even own a home, he thinks fancy real estate is a distraction from his primary endeavors.

All well and good but there’s something to enjoying the fruits of your labor. If you’re a billionaire and you are eating bologna sandwiches to save a buck your priorities are a little out of whack.

I strongly applaud the goal of off-loading debt. I am also not being the least critical of that primary message of your original post. That said, the Buffet comment has always sounded like a truly miserable attitude and existence. I would much rather enjoy both.

Our net wealth exceeds our debt by orders of magnitude. But we also do everything in our power to enjoy things and the adventures that we love. For instance, I never buy a firearm because of its potential resale value - only its value to me - aesthetically, functionally, whatever. I suspect it will offer a return at auction for my heirs as well as any similar collection purchased purely on potential return.

Our art collection is rather extensive - no grand masters to be sure - but some lovely works from the early 19th century to the 21st. Some have indeed appreciated in value, but they were purchased and hung purely for the joy they bring. My library is extensive. Many are works easily obtainable online, but there is something special, almost spiritual, in holding and reading a book created in the year of its publication. Much of that library would also do well in auction, but that has never been my concern. 18th and 19th century weaponry adorn almost every room of the house. Again, with my background cleaning and polishing a blade last used in combat at Waterloo or Omdurman is to commune with kindred shades.

I do drive a 2016 F250, but other than looks, I really can't improve on it. I could have paid cash for the QX80, but that money is earning me nearly 20% against a 3% cost as opposed to simply depreciating for the next five years. We do not owe a penny on our home or the land upon which it sits, but that is an appreciating asset which has provided a remarkable return over the last decade.

So yes, I live in the most advanced civilization yet created on this planet and gladly participate in the fruits of that civilization as a consumer. I suppose a Spartan existence can also represent a form of appreciation - even the aesthetic. But personally, I'll gladly embrace a vignette in oil by George Henry Boughton or Alexander John Drysdale, a long lean James MacNaughton, or a leatherbound copy of the Works of Flavius Josephus published in the late 17th century over a goal of pure austerity or old ham on stale bread.

 

[Scott CWO]

On this, I disagree (except the last sentence, anyway).

There's a couple of things to unpick in the 'can humans actually have lasting impact' topic.

Firstly, can ANY biological organism have a lasting impact on the planet? This one is very easy to answer, and it's a resounding yes. To prove it, one can just look at our atmosphere and the geological record.

3.5bn years ago, an insignificant little microbe evolved an insignificant metabolic pathway, and fundamentally changed the course of the planet. That pathway? Photosynthesis.

Photosynthesis, for the first time in 2bn years, placed substantial amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere. The impact was, and is, profound. Earth is the ONLY planet in the solar system with much free oxygen. Biological processes are the only known mechanism by which that can occur. Oxygen is highly reactive with basically everything and so without a constant, high level source of production, it rapidly gets removed into oxides. See Mars or Venus as examples.

The impact of this Great Oxidation Event has persisted for billions of years, more than half the time the Earth has existed. It is significant and it is long lasting. It massively changed climate, and geological processes, life, and everything else. It resulted in a drop in atmospheric CO2 from 97%, to levels not that different from today and subsequently caused a global mass extinction of anaerobic bacteria (ie basically all life forms at the time) more wide ranging and comprehensive than the Permian Great Dying, or the Cretaceous asteroid impact.

The sequestration of CO2 by plant life in the Carboniferous is another, although far less impactful, example of this.

Secondly. Are humans able to have a lasting impact? The answer here is also a yes. In 1907, humanity developed synthetic plastics. They've since spread to every corner of the planet, from Everest, to the atmosphere, to the deep ocean, to every living organism. Plastics will be a key marker of humanity in the geological record, measurably changing the composition of sedimentary rocks from this period in a way detectable for at least millions of years. Probably an impact detectable long after the demise of our own species.

Humans have also significantly changed the fossil record, in a way that will be detectable for a very long time. Not only by dumping a load of our own organic matter into it, but also by significantly changing the range of other organisms. The mega faunal extinctions of 50-000-13,000 years ago will be observable in the fossil record of this planet for all time (or at least until the Sun goes full red giant and vaporizes everything). So will some of the impacts of our agriculture in terms of ranges for species, relative prevalence of those species, etc. Maize in Europe, Potatoes in Europe, 2 row Barley in the Americas as examples. So will the elimination of diseases like smallpox, rinderpest and probably more in the years to come. That is a profound and long lasting impact.

CO2 in the atmosphere is also a potential impact here. We know that life can change atmospheric composition (photosynthesis). We know that life has in the past impacted (reduced) CO2 levels (carboniferous, photosynthesis). We know that these changes in the past have lead to major changes in biological diversity and the ragne of other organisms (mass extinctions). We know we are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that has stayed out of it for hundreds of millions of years. Will that have an impact? Up for debate, but it doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility, and it also doesn't seem impossible that this impact may persist for a long time.

Finally, nuclear holocaust. If we as a species go down that road, it will have immense impacts on this planet that will again persist for a very long time in the fossil record, and in geology. We might not be around to care, but the impact to all ecosystems will be profound, and persistent, and measurable, for billions of years, just as every other mass extinction (some of which can also be laid at the feet of living organisms) has been.

Going back to your suggestion that this is arrogance. I'd simply ask: Is it arrogance to think that humans may have a measurable and long lasting impact on the planet when so many other organisms have already done so?

I don't think so, even if personally I think we're rather overstating our current impact versus the wider geological context, mostly due to proximity.

The only point up for debate is if this impact is profound enough to 'matter' and if it is, do we plan to do anything about it. That's a political question, not a scientific one in my mind, and not one we have many good, evidence based, answers for.

In 4 billion years when the Andromeda Galaxy (50% larger than the Milky Way) collides with our Milky Way, our sun and solar system will be heavily affected and the earth will either burn up or freeze. While this means little right now, the earth has always changed and will continue to change. The slight heating we are experiencing now isn’t necessarily a bad thing but that’s how it is being marketed.

 

[gbflyer]

I have listened to most of the interview with Harris from last night. Anything that is bad in the world is evidently Trumps fault.

One obvious question that should have been asked was when Harris was talking about how Trump wanted to prosecute (and put them in prison) his political foes and anyone that didn’t agree with him. Baer should’ve asked “you mean exactly what your administration is trying to do to former President Trump?”
Maybe it was asked and I just missed it.

I don’t like her. I have to give her credit for doing an interview where the hard questions would be asked though. She did deflect a lot, just like they all do. She could have easily said no and went to one of the other networks with the softball questions.

 

[Tanks]

are you willing to go with out electricity ,when you shut them down, they have shut some down in Nevada and the price of a kilowatt has gone up, if they remove more dams in Washington on the Columbia the price will go sky high, I read one engineers mathematical prediction on the solar panels needed to replace 1 dams energy production, it was in the hundreds of thousands of panels, which by the way arent reliable after 10-12 years, wind mills on the other hand are beautiful to look at, kill birds and whales, due to magnetic interference. by building these huge solar panel fields it also has an effect on the local weather.

I am not saying solar should replace goal. You want really clean then go nuclear also one can replace coal with natural gas. I am fine with increased costs in order to get rid of pollution. Never said we have to shutdown dams either, that is also clean energy.

 

[Inline6]

I have arrived at the conclusion you either have faith in a creator God or faith in a evolution theory neither of which I suppose can be proven by science, one has much more promise than the other. Just a thot.

I'm guessing you don't know what thot means in today's society.

 

[Tanks]

I'm guessing you don't know what thot means in today's society.

 

[Alistair]

All this is predicated on being primarily a consumer. Your statements are not at all unusual, but they are sort of telling that we're indoctrinated to be consumers.

What's my credit score? 850, don't care, won't ever use it again.
What's my best interest rate attainable? Don't care, don't want to borrow money.
What do I need to consume? Not much, fuel, food, energy, a few odds and ends.

I wasted 30 years of my life thinking like a consumer and being poorer than I should have been because I was a consumer. Had I bought more assets and less depreciable goods, I would have been quite wealthy by now. Cash is king. Buying things that go up in value rather than things that are consumed is the focus.

If there is one thing my kids and any kid I meet hears, its that debt is the noose that strangles you. It forces you to be a consumer minded cog in a machine, a salary man as the Japanese call it.

Automation and efficiencies don't really have the impact on the cash-rich value-enhancer, they just screw the consumer and the salary man. Any kid with some reasonable guidance and a distaste for debt can be a millionaire by 30 if they do not consume, only produce. It's just that we don't teach children (or adults) how to avoid consumerism whatsoever.

Probably the best example of the above is Warren Buffet, who lives in his "sh7tty" little house and drives his "crappy old car" and occasionally eats a "mediocre hotdog" from Dairy Queen. He focused on creating value and providing goods and services to consumers while not being a consumer.

I'd say that my comments are indeed predicated on someone being a consumer, yes. That is after all how capitalism works. It doesn't necessarily have to be me or you, but it has to be someone. Lots of someones, in fact.

Your suggestion works for the individual. For the individual it's a good plan, it's the best route to financial security, you should definitely try and educate your kids into that way of thinking. It'll make 'em a lot happier in the long run and it's what I try to do myself. Every individual should follow it.

But the fact of the matter is, you can only get to be 'cash-rich' with a successful enterprise if someone is willing to pay for the product or service you provide. If someone is willing and able to play consumer. If someone isn't willing to follow your advice. Otherwise you as the 'productive value-enhancer' (at least in any sector not involved with producing the absolute necessities, which is to say most sectors) can't turn a profit on your productivity, and can't amass cash. No revenue tends to do that to a business.

Taking your Buffet example, he might choose not to be a consumer himself, but he certainly needs someone to buy Coca-cola instead of just drinking water, someone to buy over-priced Apple products, someone to take out loans from Bank of America to buy crap they don't need and can't really afford. If they don't, what happens to his portfolio value?

Or take the S&P500. What percentage of total profits (and therefore, loosely, valuation) for S&P500 companies do you think come from the sale of 'necessary' goods? By contrast, what percentage do you think comes from products bought by people who don't need them and probably can't really afford them? Ergo, if large numbers of Americans get smart about their lifestyle spend and all of that profit from unnecessary purchases (and the financing activity associated with them) goes away, what happens to your net worth?

If everyone (or even a significant portion of people) were as smart about consumption as you are, the US economy would be a whole lot smaller... and you'd be a whole lot poorer.

My concern around this wave of automation is that if it's a significant net negative for job creation or a net negative for wages, then a lot of that unnecessary consumerism becomes financially impossible (as opposed to simply financially irresponsible) for a lot of people. If that happens, then we all suffer.

 

[Alistair]

We are destroying mostly low skilled jobs and also some jobs that could never have been done by humans (silicone wafers etc.), obviously a computer chip with billions of transistors could never be done by a human (Apple's M1 chip has 114B). Automation allows us to improve technology.

Results of this automation do get consumed. Humans will need to get educated and move/improve with the times. The days of paying an auto worker XXX dollars per hour to install windshields are gone.

It definitely allows us to improve technology.

I'm hopeful (but not convinced) that this round of automation and the improved technology it will unlock will open up new markets and new niches that will allow jobs to be created faster than they're destroyed. That's what has happened in the past for textiles, and cars, and computers after all. There's certainly precedent.

I'm not that optimistic on that though. I hope I'm proven wrong!

 

[mdwest]

This sounds boring AF. So why be rich if you are going to live life you are poor. I rather be like Jimmy John and buy a bunch of governors tags.

Buffet does indeed still live in the same house he bought many years before becoming a billionaire…

But don’t mistake him for living like a pauper…

The place he stays at routinely in Jackson Hole is as lavish as Buckingham Palace…

The place he stays at when he is in Austin is $4500 a night…

He might like a simple life when at “home”…

But there is quite a bit of contrast compared to how he lives on the road..

And Buffett is on the road a lot..

 

[freefall]

Buffet does indeed still live in the same house he bought many years before becoming a billionaire…

But don’t mistake him for living like a pauper…

The place he stays at routinely in Jackson Hole is as lavish as Buckingham Palace…

The place he stays at when he is in Austin is $4500 a night…

He might like a simple life when at “home”…

But there is quite a bit of contrast compared to how he lives on the road..

And Buffett is on the road a lot..

I have seen Buffet's house. It's not a mansion, but it's not a crap-shack either.

 

[Scott CWO]

View attachment 640961View attachment 640962

Seems very close in features, cheekbones, chin shape of head, chin etc.. Guess DNA will be the final arbiter.

Looks like what I suspected, no brain inside that head. Lol.

 

[spike.t]

Russia and China.....the west is never going to catch up.....stated to try but bit late to the party me thinks...

Russia is set to establish an oil refinery in one of Africa’s oil producing nations

Russia and the Republic of Congo aim to collaborate on the construction of an oil refinery

africa.businessinsider.com

 

[Hogpatrol]

Russia and China.....the west is never going to catch up.....stated to try but bit late to the party me thinks...

Russia is set to establish an oil refinery in one of Africa’s oil producing nations

Russia and the Republic of Congo aim to collaborate on the construction of an oil refinery

africa.businessinsider.com

Methinks they don't know Africa and its culture like the West knows Africa, corruption, stealing, endless tribal warfare and failed states. Some just have to learn the hard way. Witness the Moz fishing fleet, TWO BILLION down the drain.

The Ghost Fleet Of Mozambique

MAPUTO, Mozambique – Mozambique got itself in hot water over a $2 billion debt default connected to its purchase of a tuna fishing fleet, a coastal monitoring and security system and the tools to create its own shipbuilding business. There are now legal proceedings on three continents related to the

stopillegalfishing.com

Nigeria, oil rich and broke.

Nigeria technically bankrupt, says Obaseki

Obaseki explained that Nigeria neither had enough nor earned enough to cover its expenditure, describing it as technically bankrupt.

punchng.com

 

[sgt_zim]

I'd be lighting cigars with $100 bills

Honestly, other than more hunting and more general traveling, my life wouldn't change by much. I'd build a house with a nice trophy room, on a "few" acres somewhere in the inland PNW. I'd have a lot more invested in real estate. I'd buy even better Bourbon and gin, though I don't really go for the cheap stuff now. My tastes are refined, but simple.

 

[sgt_zim]

Methinks they don't know Africa and its culture like the West knows Africa, corruption, stealing, endless tribal warfare and failed states. Some just have to learn the hard way. Witness the Moz fishing fleet, TWO BILLION down the drain.

The Ghost Fleet Of Mozambique

MAPUTO, Mozambique – Mozambique got itself in hot water over a $2 billion debt default connected to its purchase of a tuna fishing fleet, a coastal monitoring and security system and the tools to create its own shipbuilding business. There are now legal proceedings on three continents related to the

stopillegalfishing.com

Nigeria, oil rich and broke.

Nigeria technically bankrupt, says Obaseki

Obaseki explained that Nigeria neither had enough nor earned enough to cover its expenditure, describing it as technically bankrupt.

punchng.com

IDK, Russia and China play by a different set of rules. Supposing Rhodesia had been a Russian/Chinese colony, do you imagine they'd have done to an Ian Smith what Britain and the US did? I imagine they'd make Leopold II look like a choir boy by way of comparison.

 

[375 Ruger Fan]

Buffet does indeed still live in the same house he bought many years before becoming a billionaire…

But don’t mistake him for living like a pauper…

The place he stays at routinely in Jackson Hole is as lavish as Buckingham Palace…

The place he stays at when he is in Austin is $4500 a night…

He might like a simple life when at “home”…

But there is quite a bit of contrast compared to how he lives on the road..

And Buffett is on the road a lot..

I've read he likes Omaha steaks and cherry coke, and he gives millions away to worthy charities. He's living life exactly how he wants to and people should be okay with that. When he travels, it by private jet. Life is good.

 

[Dirtdart]

This is worth a look as Sheriff Judd explains exactly how the feds handle illegals crossing our border.

Firebrand Florida sheriff blasts Biden-Harris open border after human trafficking op nets 25 illegal aliens, Disney employee | Blaze Media

'Make no mistake about it, the government is complicit and is aiding and abetting human trafficking in the United States.'

www.theblaze.com