osan
Member

Afford yourself as many options as possible. Warren Buffet once quipped that diversification is for chumps. Easy to say when you're sitting atop billions and almost certainly have insider information. I cut my teeth on Wall Street. I know what goes on there.

Firstly, I take all your points quite well and will not make large responses, but would like to respond to a tiong or two. Technically, you are correct, but it is no longer currency and currencies no longer represent gold, so for all practical purposes. Perhaps I should have been more explicit.

c'est la guerre...

So how'd it go?

PS: What is meant by the question of whether 9/11 is still important? Three thousand people were murdered. There is no statute of limitations applicable. I recently learned that my thought that nobody I knew was in the towers was wrong. I saw some documentary on the event and lo and behold there was Rich Eichen, one of my old associates, who'd survived the day. It was very strange seeing him like that. Now I wonder whether there was anyone else. I think the film was titled "Surviving 9/11" or something like that. Actually it may have been a series. Anyhow, it was strange in any event.

Trump's only real error laid in his failure to keep asking pointed questions of Harris. Harris was dead meat at her own hands. Let's recap just broadly. Firstly the moderators sucked the big gay tuna. Their work was so artlessly transparent, I was torn between pitying them and wanting to be on their firing squads. If ABC has any epsilon of credibility before the "debate", they sure as hell had none of it left at the end. They tossed creampuffs at Harris and failed to follow up in the wake of her utter bullshit responses and outright failures to answer what had been asked. They took a markedly different tone and approach with Trump, their hostility thinly masked. Harris spoke in nothing but vagaries clearly intended to have an emotional effect. Trump's other mistake was rising to Harris' bait. Bad move, but now water under the bridge.

Perhaps, but look where we ended up anyway.

This is as nonsequitur as "The anti-Black imagination has created a horrific version of Black people, therefore kitchen sink."

Two allies will make zero difference. I'd casually estimate that no less than thirty like-minded and morally intact senators would be needed to have a palpable effect. Fifty would be better, but I have precious little hope for the thirty, so... What we need is my Amendment 28. Given the horrific state in which we find ourselves, politically speaking, I feel that my Amendment is the only way forward toward actual liberty that does not perforce necessitate large amounts of bloodshed.

The "misinformation" cancer has got to be nipped in the bud because the trajectory lands us in the middle of 1984.

Elecrtric vehicles are cancer and have no future unless and until human energy storage tech for electrics undergoes a quantum advance. Our understanding of motors is fair to middling now, and apparently improving every day. Our understanding of electricity is pretty good. But our understanding of high-density energy storage sucks the big tuna. At this time, the highest energy densities are found in explosives. Sadly, those materials are not as yet suitable for the production of electrical outputs. The next best is gasoline and similar aromatics whose density is quite high, but much of which blows out the ass end of the vehicle. See the Second Law for more information. By comparison, battery technology is just sad. Constructing them is an environmental nightmare. Costs are astonishingly high, performance is atrocious, as is the safety factor. If you've never seen lithium, an alkali metal, burn, you've never had quite the thrill. I've seen metals burn including lithium, sodium, iron oxide, and titanium. They are all very violent and a car whose battery goes up tends to burn away to very little. Until energy densities at least as high as that of gasoline are achieved, I see no way that electrics will take the place of conventionally powered vehicles... unless Theye mandate it and use the force of arms to materially enforce the declarations, which would not surprise me in the least. Oh, and energy density is not the only concern. Performance at very low temperatures is an equal concern. At ten degrees F, electrics don't want to go so well, if at all. Once again, the battery puts you over the wood.

Now wouldn't that just be a kick in the head? I'd not put it past them.

I hope Trump wins and proves to be what he advertises. Then I want to see him exercise his NDAA authorities and round up the vermin from all sides, off to Gitmo for drumhead tribunals and immediate execution by rope. This is the only possible way to recover this land without widespread blood, and even this is only thinly possible. The left would likely go apey and we'd have to put down a lot of rabid dogs. I cannot say I mind the idea, but peaceable results would be preferable regardless of my deep disdain for such people. ETA: All bodies to be photographed and then to be burned to ash, which are to be spread on the other side of the fences so Cuba can have them for eternity.

The abstracts are interesting, but I take issue with a couple of things, first and foremost the barfing up of jargon, specifically "entryism". This is gratuitous and it clouds things, even if only a little. "Infiltration" is the appropriate term there and it is used just below in the next post. Words are important. Next, I would point out that the strategy of destruction has all benefits working in its favor and we can generally label it as "entropy". Ordered systems are difficult to establish and MAINTAIN. The World Trade Center took years to erect at huge cost of resources. Ordered systems are generally easy to destroy. The WTC buildings fell in under ten seconds. Why? Entropy. Things fall apart generally far more easily than they are put together. It took a long time to establish the "western world". It is a highly ordered system, the creation of which required knowledge that was hard-won. It took huge effort in manifold respects. There is the physical, the mental, the moral. All these things require huge investments to keep them afloat. As Reagan once pointed out, freedom is just one generation away from going <POOF> into the ether. It is the same with all large human endeavors because they want to fly apart. We have to not just want to keep them together, we have to want it enough, and as things stand today, we don't. We want what we want, but have been conditioned to expect someone else to do all the heavy lifting. The world not only doesn't work that way, it CANNOT. It is not in the nature of things. People... LIFE itself, tends to be entropic. Living things are generally lazy, human beings being no exception. If you toss sides of tasty beef into the territory of a tiger, it will soon stop hunting. They hunt because the stomach commands it. Otherwise, they lay about snoozing. This is a topic that has many dimensions that interlink like a great Gordian Knot. Once the will to maintain a good system is dismantled, the system collapses in short order, and we are witnessing it now in America and, I suspect, much of the rest of the world. But we don't see it in jihadist lands because their beliefs are fueled by the fanaticism of the conqueror, which is based in cause-orientation. Cause oriented people can be wildly dangerous when the cause is destructive of the interests and rights of others. Our history has demonstrated this more times than any decent man could admit without shame.

The truth is a bit complicated... mainly because economic reality tends to be. One factor that I never see addressed is that of the psychology of "profit". Note in the graph how productivity has climbed. This is almost entirely due to technology. The digital revolution has taken us far in those terms. CNC tech, for instance, has made affordable to vast millions things that would otherwise have been impossible for anyone to afford, some of it even beyond the reach of the wealthiest people. Think "cell phone" and "personal computer" for example. At CCNY we had a 4381 mainframe and at CUNY's graduate center we had a 3090E, IBM's flagship at the time. Those were many millions of dollars worth of hardware. Today, the smart watch you bought for $200 has more computing power that both of those mainframes put together. The cost of production of countless items has gone through the floor, thanks to digital technologies. In spite of a workforce that is ever flagging on the average, productivity rises all the time, and with better QC than ever before, at least in most products. Lesser costs + higher productivity + higher quality = growing margins of gross profit. And so to my point: as those margins grow, yet the real income rates stagnate at best, but in most cases actually shrink, one must turn to the business owner and ask why this is the case. They will invariably refer to lower costs, etc., but if you ask them why they have not increased employee incomes to match real rates of earnings in the face of the unavoidable inflationary nature of FRNs, they either get that deer-in-the-headlights look as they reach for a pistol, make believe they didn't hear you, or rarely will make valid reference to the wild costs that "government" regulation imposes upon them, pointing out that every dollar given in salary costs them $3 due to regulations. But there is also the fact that humans. As such, we like to gather more and are not fond of giving away... at least in the ways relevant here. Why pay them more if they will stay for less? And why stay if you cannot keep up? Because humans. As in Law, case studies are a huge part of the work of getting one's MBA, and we did hundreds of them. One macro-economic reality is that producers will ask $x/unit in Market A and $y/same-unit in Market B. Why? Because it is what they can get away with. You will pay, say, $1000/month for a life-saving drug in America, but in India it will be $50/month... and the disparities are that stark in some cases. One goes for maximum profit at all times, and they do so with very few exceptions. That is part of what happens in free markets. But what of the employees falling behind in real terms? That is a decision that owners make and they do so consciously. You cannot fix human beings because human beings. The solution, according to the likes of the wannabe Prostitute In Chief, is to impose controls from above. The real solution is to leave nature to its devices and keep things FREE. Those who decide they've had enough will either find better jobs or start their own businesses. The rest? Tough noogies. If you're content to remain in spite of your complaints, you deserve nothing better.

Felony charges for everyone involved. The larger question is how did the parents raise such a sissy? The abuse through which some of us endured would seemingly crush the typical GenZ faggg-0. I cannot wrap my head around how it is that parents raise children to become Weakmen.

Hs you any specific links perchance? I've not seen much on this prior and would be interested to learn what those boys had up their sleeves in those days.

As many of you must have surmised by now, I trust nobody where politics are concerned. I don't even trust myself, nor Trump .and. by no means whatsoever do I trust Kennedy. That said, I retain my hopes. In the relevant case, I not only hope Trump proves himself as he presents himself, I hope that Kennedy sees all the light and rejects the bankrupt philosophy of the left. The hope is thin.

That's not irony. It is rank, bald-faced, unapologetic hypocrisy. They are lower in status than pedophiles.

What do you mean an actual penis? What'd they do, lop one off and plug it in?