prev <-> next
[2020-12-18 15:01:02] - a: I mean, you see the circular logic here, right? "We can't propose any bills because Trump won't pass them. Want proof? He hasn't passed any of our bills!" -Paul
[2020-12-18 15:00:37] - i guess. ~a
[2020-12-18 15:00:27] - a: I guess because they haven't proposed any? -Paul
[2020-12-18 14:59:08] - paul: while this may be true, i don't think trump has been signing his name on many criminal justice reform bills proposed by democrats. ~a
[2020-12-18 14:57:56] - a: "what would be the point?" To... enact change? A reminder that Trump has actually been better on criminal justice reform than Obama was. -Paul
[2020-12-18 14:57:07] - yep. ~a
[2020-12-18 14:56:37] - a: Sure, but the article also didn't shy away from how diversity is a factor being considered, right? "To me the issue of ethics is very significant, very important for this country,and clearly favors the essential worker group because of the high proportion of minority, low-income and low-education workers among essential workers." -Paul
[2020-12-18 14:46:22] - if you're a democrat right now, the republicans will be "forced" to propose police reform legislation that you'll have a chance of actually voting "yes" on. so wait until that happens, and vote yes on it, if its a good bill. ~a
[2020-12-18 14:20:22] - paul: if you're a democrat under mcconnell + trump what would be the point? let the republicans propose them. ~a
[2020-12-18 14:19:59] - . . . obviously we can't use the traditional definition of "essential" for this job. ~a
[2020-12-18 14:19:15] - paul: there's a lot to unpack there, but i think the article more focused on how the essential workers were most at risk of infection, not that they were "diverse". ~a
[2020-12-18 14:17:25] - mig: Honest question, but have there been any police reform legislation offered by Democrats lately? The two I can think of were offered by Justin Amash and Rand Paul. -Paul
[2020-12-18 13:35:25] - https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/05/health/covid-vaccine-first.html Should the COVID vaccine be prioritized for the elderly and those most at risk for dying? Or the essential workers who are more diverse? -Paul
[2020-12-18 02:21:57] - a: https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/supreme-court-didnt-put-nail-civil-asset-forfeitures yes, actually. unfortunately with a mixed bag of a ruling though. - mig
[2020-12-18 02:13:13] - yay finally. "civil asset forfeiture is a due process violation, and it always has been" yep. wait how has the supreme court not ruled on this. ~a
[2020-12-18 01:35:56] - https://reason.com/2020/12/17/justin-amash-introduces-bill-to-end-civil-asset-forfeiture-nationwide/ this is a defund the police measure iād be down with. - mig
[2020-12-17 17:21:24] - mig: that some weak shit. it seems like what they're alleging is impossible. their motives for showing up at her property read like a classic cover-up: they're acting like someone who is trying to silence more whistle-blowers. jones wasn't the target of their investigation. the wikipedia article reads like a fucking netflix documentary in the making. ~a
[2020-12-17 17:15:27] - a: from the sounds of what little details there are they seem to be alleging unauthorized access to a government computer system? Still seems like an excessive response, but sadly not out of the ordinary I imagine for that sort of alleged crime. - mig
[2020-12-17 16:58:28] - a: No need to be sorry.
I agree that it sounds like this is particularly petty and egregious. I do think it sadly happens a lot, though. Wasn't there some police raid based on some parody twitter account? Yeah, here it is: https://www.vice.com/en/article/4w7n8m/the-victim-of-a-police-twitter-raid-is-suing -Paul[2020-12-17 16:56:22] - paul: i mean i get it, you're just saying we mistreat whistleblowers. i agree with that. it's totally true. maybe i should have just left it with that, sorry. ~a
[2020-12-17 16:55:17] - paul: this seems like a new animal entirely. it seems like snowden, winner, and manning all were dealing with classified information. there is zero classified info here, right? i mean, i get it, laws were broken if jones didn't follow the correct whistleblowing rules, but still, its very different in my opinion. *what's more*, i think the recent runins with the law were unrelated to her position as whistleblower. she left in may! ~a
[2020-12-17 16:50:58] - a: Or, sorry, I guess Chelsea? Maybe I should've stuck to just last names. -Paul
[2020-12-17 16:50:19] - a: Probably. I mean, that's how whistleblowers often get treated, right? Snowden. Reality Winner. Bradley Manning. -Paul
[2020-12-17 16:12:00] - are there two sides to this story? what the fuck is going on in florida? ~a
[2020-12-17 15:55:27] - a: Those are some impressive glitches. -Paul
[2020-12-17 15:29:24] - if you're like me and you've been (only) reading about the cyberpunk2077 glitches but haven't actually seen any of them for yourself, you might like this compilation of a bunch of glitches that has been edited into a fake trailer. ~a
[2020-12-17 14:12:48] - a: $23k now. Euphoria is back! -Paul
[2020-12-16 18:44:38] - daniel: "bias towards high level management", yeah this might be the true sticking point. i wonder if we can do an experiment that proves if top-down management is good or bad. ~a
[2020-12-16 18:44:15] - Again I'm not opposed to more experience I would just put myself in the not so big a deal camp. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:43:35] - /shrug CEO's jump industries, buy sports teams, Carson leads HUD, random people get given ambassordships. People lead things all the time that they aren't experts of and make it work. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:41:30] - "Seems all interchangeable to me" seems to me that if you're treating it in an interchangeable way, you're probably doing it wrong. ~a
[2020-12-16 18:41:08] - a: Sure - I did use the word 'the' but yeah I would say thats the only reason for or against. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:40:20] - But maybe thats some level of internal bias towards high level management. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:40:02] - daniel: agreed, but that's not the only drawback. ~a
[2020-12-16 18:40:01] - As for Mayor Pete in particular - will he be a good Sec DoT? I don't know but I don't a reason he would be bad at it. Does he need industry experience in order to lead the Dept? /shrug. I guess partly I don't think a lot of special knowledge is needed for any CEO position or one thats high enough up to be removed from specifics. Its all just budgets / priorities / strategic stuff. Seems all interchangeable to me. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:38:01] - So I'm not 100% either what the DoT does but making sure that rail lines / roads / airlines work in some consistent fashion across the US seems like it would have benefits. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 18:37:21] - I wouldn't advocate against a cabinet person having industry experience but I'm still not sure its a hard requirement in my head. The benefit (and drawback) of any federal regulation is the uniformity within the country. You can trust that bank accounts are insured all across the country no matter which state because of federal regulations. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 17:58:11] - oof, sorry if you lost some messages. one of my power breakers went out and the power loss broke the message board. its back i think! ~a
[2020-12-16 17:57:41] - testing. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:53:10] - paul: "sent everybody home and refunded the budget back to the states" you say that like it's legal. its not. you can't do that by executive order. "What is the worst that happens?" i can't even begin to answer that question. my guess is that it would be really really really bad. i actually worked for the federal DOT something like 20 years ago, and i'm 100% sure you'd be very surprised at how much stuff they do. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:42:42] - i've been only quoting you, so hopefully you have been spelling it right. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:41:47] - a: But if that's not even the case and instead it's just another politician given the job as a thank you for supporting the president whose only particular qualification seems to be "making decisions".... then it just seems like another level of bureaucracy to me. Also, I CANNOT spell that word right the first time. -paul
[2020-12-16 17:40:53] - paul: laws need to change first. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:40:22] - paul: if you want to increase the states responsibilities, and decrease the federal governments responsibilities, eliminating cabinet positions is putting the cart before the horse. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:40:17] - a: I guess my thinking is that, as a libertarian, I wonder why we even need an executive branch level department of transportation. The best argument I can see for having one is if we have some transportation "expert" in charge to make the smart decisions that local governments might not. -Paul
[2020-12-16 17:38:22] - a: I was responding to this: ""too many levels of bureaucracy to me" you lost me here". I guess I am confused why that confuses you yet you seem to agree with me on everything else.
Why do we "DEF need the position"? -Paul[2020-12-16 17:38:17] - "right answer" by this i meant "wrong answer", sorry. i was changing my sentence and didn't finish. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:37:20] - playing devil's advocate, maybe you sometimes want to "shake things up" and put in a washington outsider. but i don't think this is the right way. it feels so fucking trumpian to me. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:36:22] - paul: "What is the benefit of having the mayor of a town in Indiana with no transportation experience dictating rules and regulations to me?" again, i'm on your side. i agree. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:35:30] - paul: "Why does the executive branch need a non-expert heading up some department of transportation when it can instead be delegated to more local government?" well that's an oversimplification if i've ever seen one. you'd first have to start changing the laws. but i'd be all for it, honestly. but in the mean time, we DEF need the position. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:34:44] - paul: "At some point, don't we want somebody with some actual expertise making decisions?" yes of course, but if you remember i was on your side on this one. so maybe you're talking to daniel here. i merely think reducing "levels of bureaucracy" is the right answer for a large system of moving parts. ~a
[2020-12-16 17:32:39] - a: Like, if I was in charge of transportation in... say California. What is the benefit of having the mayor of a town in Indiana with no transportation experience dictating rules and regulations to me? -Paul
[2020-12-16 17:31:43] - a: You said you like how separate the states are and want separating concerns. Well, then why not just abolish the whole cabinet level position of transportation and leave it to the states? Why does the executive branch need a non-expert heading up some department of transportation when it can instead be delegated to more local government? -Paul
[2020-12-16 17:29:06] - a: So it's like a part of a third of half of the American government. At some point, don't we want somebody with some actual expertise making decisions? How many CEO-types are we talking about whose sole qualification seems to be being able to delegate work to others? -Paul
[2020-12-16 17:27:58] - a: So, I understand the argument that the deciding / delegating CEO type doesn't have to be an expert and can instead rely on expert underlings to inform him/her and just be good at making informed decisions. But we're talking about a cabinet position in the executive branch of the federal government. -Paul
[2020-12-16 16:03:11] - paul: "too many levels of bureaucracy to me" you lost me here. separating concerns is the most efficient way of managing a large company or country. for example, i kinda like how separate the states are, and (for the most part) wish the federal government had less power over the states. ~a
[2020-12-16 16:01:58] - a: I think I partially agree with you? I would agree that its probably at best near the minimum qualifications one should expect. I'm also not that worried about it either so clearly accept it to some degree? -Daniel
[2020-12-16 15:59:49] - Paul: CEO of a subsidiary? -Daniel
[2020-12-16 15:49:38] - Daniel: If each separate department in the president's cabinet (which is just one branch of the federal government) is analogous to a whole company... that seems like maybe too many levels of bureaucracy to me. -Paul
[2020-12-16 15:48:38] - daniel: "How many CEO's jump companies to one that has nothing to do with their previous industry?" that's not the problem here. he doesn't just have no experience in the industry, it's that he just doesn't have any experience of this magnitude. mayor of a small town and ensign in the navy isn't enough (imo). ~a
[2020-12-16 15:48:01] - Daniel: I guess a lot depends on exactly what the responsibilities of the secretary of transportation is. I guess I think of the President as CEO and therefore the secretary of transportation might be the Chief Marketing Officer or Chief Technology Officer, and in those cases, I would want them to have SOME experience with marketing/technology. -Paul
[2020-12-16 15:43:44] - I wouldn't argue that industry knowledge is bad just that for some of these other positions I don't think its critical either. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 15:43:18] - I have trouble envisioning what a CEO of a major company does all day anyway but I think its lots of meetings and listening to proposals and strategic thinking type stuff. So if you listen to your peeps and then make a decision seems like it can still be a good outcome. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 15:42:08] - a/Paul: I don't think its ceremonial just that you can have vision / leadership without industry experience. How many CEO's jump companies to one that has nothing to do with their previous industry? I don't think Trump not being a statesmen is the entirety of the issue with him. Its a lot. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 15:41:03] - you're the oracle from northern virginia. ~a
[2020-12-16 15:39:33] - a: That's.... amazing considering what has happened this year. -Paul
[2020-12-16 15:39:06] - a: Oh, hah! I didn't say it had to end 2020 over $20k, so I guess that counts as a win now no matter what. Sweet! I am now 1 percentage point away from being right about all of them except the Nintendo buyout. -Paul
[2020-12-16 15:28:26] - yep you made it in under the wire. ~a
[2020-12-16 15:27:49] - a: https://paulvsthemarket.com/recklessly-bold-predictions-for-2020/ My bold predictions are looking really good right now. -Paul
[2020-12-16 15:19:01] - paul: bitcoin passed $20k for the first time this morning. ~a
[2020-12-16 15:10:33] - i'm completely with paul. we've had four years of a non-statesman in charge of the state, and i'd love for that to end. if it's a ceremonial role, then we shouldn't have it. ~a
[2020-12-16 15:00:39] - Daniel: I guess it feels like if it's not a critical position, then why have it? It feels like one of two things has to be true: (1) The secretary of transportation is in charge of setting national transportation policy and thus should be somebody who kinda knows what they are doing or (2) It's not important and thus what's the point? -Paul
[2020-12-16 14:52:49] - If you are from the industry seems like there would be some inherent bias / conflicts that would arise? Though I imagine those have come up before and been dealt with so maybe not that big a deal. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 14:51:59] - I'm also trying to think which part of the transportation industry we should draw from for the Sec position. I'm not entirely sure I'd want someone from the airline industry in charge. I mean maybe but after the whole Boeing debacle I'd be leery though that might be painting with to broad a brush. Railway? Musk would be interesting but he seems busy. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 14:42:38] - Like was Carson a bad HUD leader? Honestly I have no idea. So I guess to some degree he wasn't at least so bad that I know about it. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 14:41:51] - I feel like cabinet positions are not always as critical like mig pointed out. I think a lot of them are just admin / decision making which being a mayor (or honestly running a quality campaign) can show competence in. There are career people in the dept's who can bring sec up to speed. I think there can be people from the industry but I think that can be good or bad not just inherently better. -Daniel
[2020-12-16 14:38:09] - I do feel like aside from DoJ, DoD, and State, most cabinet positions are kind of ceremonial, and that's reflected in the appointees. - mig
[2020-12-16 14:16:53] - mig: I'm guessing not. Totally buy the idea this is the standard for multiple administrations. Just seems like it shouldn't be. -Paul
[2020-12-16 14:09:21] - paul: to be fair this isn't new. Was Ben Carson really qualified for HUD? - mig
[2020-12-16 14:08:07] - And again, this isn't about Buttigieg in particular, he just happened to be the announced appointment that got me thinking about this. I'm sure Trump's appointees were much less qualified. I just feel like maybe some of these positions should come from private industry or academia or something other than a random mayor.
-Paul[2020-12-16 14:07:59] - paul: gotta check them representation boxes. - mig
[2020-12-16 14:04:24] - Nothing against Buttigieg in particular (all things considered, I kinda like him and think he's pretty smart), but what qualifications does he have to be transportation secretary? I assume it's totally normal to reward supporters with cabinet positions they have no qualifications for, but if we have a federal position in charge of transportation, shouldn't it be staffed by somebody with some expertise? -Paul
[2020-12-16 13:58:02] - a: Okay, well, I thought my ARKK vs VTSAX bet was shaky (still do, honestly). I do believe it is hard for active managers to beat the S&P (although maybe the Nasdaq is the better benchmark) and ARKK already had such a run-up I wonder if they can keep it up. I just got worked up by that ad they had.
-Paul[2020-12-15 22:08:55] - daniel: pierce was complaining about this. i told him that the message board was written in 2004 and predated the 4-byte utf-8. i think i figured it out, though. mysql, by default, doesn't support the 4 character utf-8. i did this and it seemed to work: "alter table msg modify msg_str text character set utf8mb4;" š ~a
[2020-12-15 21:57:56] - I'm not sure its worth supporting. Just letting you know in case something weird shows up in logs or something. -Daniel
[2020-12-15 21:57:27] - I tried to paste a thumbs up emoji and got "Incorrect string value: '\xF0\x9F\x91\x8D (...' for column `msgboard`.`msg`.`msg_str` at row 1" -Daniel
[2020-12-15 21:55:58] - yep i'll be there. ~a
[2020-12-15 21:55:46] - a: Good for sc2 tonight? -Daniel
[2020-12-15 21:46:09] - vtsax is the entire market (low beta) and arkk is just a few companies (high beta). traditional active scenarios involve more . . . companies? i dunno? ~a
[2020-12-15 21:45:44] - a: Really? Why not? -Paul
[2020-12-15 21:41:18] - yeah, i hear you. but i don't believe this is a traditional "passive" vs "active" scenario. ~a
[2020-12-15 21:36:24] - a: I almost certainly wouldn't have offered odds. If anything, I felt like I should've gotten odds considering the general consensus of passive investing vs active management. -Paul
[2020-12-15 21:35:48] - a: Interesting. Count me surprised. You seemed pretty confident when we made it and I thought you were still a strong believer in the idea of actively managed funds not being able to beat VTSAX (and honestly, I do still believe it's hard for actively managed funds to win). I was nervous about the bet on my end especially with how Tesla had run up so far already. -Paul
[2020-12-15 20:50:40] - paul: i already hate our arkk bet. why didn't i demand odds? i feel like there's a low chance that vtsax will beat arkk, but that doesn't mean vtsax is a bad investment. there's like a, say, 25% chance that vtsax beats arkk, but like a much smaller chance of going broke? so anyways, i feel like it was a bad bet for me to make. ~a
[2020-12-15 17:26:22] - a: I could entirely be wrong. Maybe it has to be exercised on the expiration date. Or maybe only at the end of the week or end of the trading day. I think I've only ever bought (or sold) like two options and they were both super safe stuff like covered calls which didn't pass the strike price. -Paul
[2020-12-15 16:51:09] - like why would you ever buy an option (put or call) that is immediately exercisable for a profit? like, why is the other guy even selling you the option? the prices are all high. how is the option execution handled? is it automatic somehow? if not, how much time do you have to process the execution? ~a
[2020-12-15 16:46:19] - oh wow. i guess theres a lot about options i don't understand then. hah. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:40:39] - a: yeah, I think you can exercise an option whenever you want? Maybe? -Paul
[2020-12-15 16:28:40] - i guess you're technically allowed to exercise an option that would lose you money? i wonder why someone would want to do that. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:16:39] - how does the expiration period work? in yahoo i see a date, but it doesn't explicitly explain when the exercising is allowed to begin and end. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:06:22] - oh obligation. damn it. i'm getting my terminology wrong too. "obligation to buy shares at a certain price" yeah that's a put seller. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:05:39] - "obligation to buy shares at a certain price" its a call buyer or a put seller. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:05:17] - well actually, never mind. that's both. ~a
[2020-12-15 16:05:02] - "obligation to buy shares at a certain price" that's a call. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:54:09] - a: Maybe I am saying it wrong. I often get my options terminology wrong. I am meaning to talk about selling the obligation to buy shares at a certain price. So, you make money from somebody wanting to protect against downside and you potentially get to acquire shares for cheaper than current market price. -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:50:45] - paul: "if you are selling puts, your strike price is almost certainly going to be below the current price, right?" no, not at all. (?) if anything, a put seller would have an easier time leveraging by selling a put at a strike price above the spot price. right? ~a
[2020-12-15 15:45:22] - paul: leverage up, or take advantage of people who want to leverage up. i'd try to be the second guy, i think. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:44:57] - a: My problem is that the "safer" ways of using options still require you basically making a call on timing with a stock, which is not something I am keen on doing usually. -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:44:26] - a: Most of the way options are used are to leverage up, so if you're not a fan of that then you likely aren't a fan of options.
-Paul[2020-12-15 15:43:31] - a: Well, if you are selling puts, your strike price is almost certainly going to be below the current price, right? So if anything, you're losing less money than if you buy today at the elevated price? -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:39:47] - the more i learn about options the more i hate them
(private) stock option grants are the only kind that seem like they might actually be a good idea. ~a[2020-12-15 15:34:37] - if you're leveraging hard (which can happen easily if the strike price is way off), its more risky. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:33:16] - depends on where the strike price is, i guess. if the strike price is near the spot price, then most options aren't much different from buying selling normally, just dilating the volume or the timeframe. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:30:00] - a: I guess with selling puts my thinking is that it's no more risky than just buying those shares. Right? If I buy company ABC today and it goes bankrupt tomorrow, that's no different than selling those puts (except in the latter case I actually get some additional money). -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:29:14] - ok. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:28:45] - a: "I know next to nothing about who developed the vaccine (and I mostly don't care)" That was in response to the discussion between Cruz and Science about the nationality/ethnicity of who developed the vaccine. I don't care about that. -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:15:57] - covered calls i get. not very risky. in a way you're making money off of all of those people who want get leverage. smart! selling puts is less risky? is it, though? i guess because at worst you'd get a worthless asset you'd be forced to buy? are you really doing this with 100s of shares though? yikes. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:09:11] - -Daniel
[2020-12-15 15:09:09] - a: Sometimes he does!
[2020-12-15 15:08:29] - daniel: both work for me. dewey never replies to emails either, does he?
~a[2020-12-15 15:07:11] - "I know next to nothing about who developed the vaccine (and I mostly don't care)" you're even saying that you don't care to learn anything about them. that is a lack of appreciation almost by definition. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:06:05] - no, that's not what i'm saying. you don't need to know their nationality or ethnicity. knowing something about them though; or at least not saying "i don't care about them": would be a way of showing appreciation. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:05:04] - ok, then i don't have an opinion on whether it'll go up or down before monday. only that it'll be volatile (which . . . could also be wrong). ~a
[2020-12-15 15:04:12] - a: "this is so insanely unpredictable" 100% agree. But that doesn't mean we can't speculate.
We wager on all sorts of random stuff that is unpredictable, why not this too? -Paul[2020-12-15 15:03:22] - "they all have to be in batches of 100 shares" haha, interesting. that really cuts out the small guy. i remember back in the day (80s?) regular trades required you to buy and sell in batches. ~a
[2020-12-15 15:03:12] - a: "it ends where it ends" That doesn't answer my question at all. So in order to appreciate something/somebody I need to know their nationality and ethnicity but not gender or anything else? Is that what you are saying? -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:02:07] - a: I've tried dabbling in safe options like covered calls and selling puts, but since they all have to be in batches of 100 shares the former can be hard to do and the latter is difficult because it requires me holding cash to cover those puts if they get exercised. -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:01:07] - a: "they're asking for a lot of information before i'm allowed to trade options. why?" I think it's because of the risk involved and that they (the brokerage) can get screwed if somebody is using them irresponsibly so they want to make sure anybody they let trade options knows what they are doing to a certain extent. -Paul
[2020-12-15 15:00:47] - a: preference on day for s2? Current candidates are today or Friday? -Daniel
[2020-12-15 15:00:38] - "some (many?) index funds might not have started buying shares yet" yes, i think buying early would be bad. imagine if the price tanks: funds can't accept a price change compared to the index. ~a
[2020-12-15 14:59:38] - "You think it runs up a lot going unto the 21st or do you think the gains have already been had?" this is so insanely unpredictable. its as unknowable as when the market crash will be. tons of people are ready and prepped to sell when the mutual funds buy. i'm going to keep holding my 11 shares: i won't be selling or buying before monday unless there are some crazy price movements. maybe i'll put in a limit sell at a high price? ~a
[2020-12-15 14:50:14] - you can buy a call or sell a put if you think the price will go up. another thing that i find interesting is that options don't have to be held until their exercise date: you can buy a call and sell it to the market at any time. i've never bought or sold any options. maybe i'll make some small option trades to learn more? i worry though: they're asking for a lot of information before i'm allowed to trade options. why? ~a
[2020-12-15 14:30:58] - "I mean, where does it end?" it ends where it ends. this isn't a slippery slope. ~a
[2020-12-15 14:24:58] - a: Tesla is supposed to get added to the S&P 500 on December 21st, which I believe is the largest add (by market cap) of a company to the index ever. You think it runs up a lot going unto the 21st or do you think the gains have already been had? There's evidence that some (many?) index funds might not have started buying shares yet. -Paul
[2020-12-15 14:08:51] - a: Agreed on liquidity. Without options, if you wanted to go long on a stock in a big way you had to buy a lot of shares. With options, you don't have to buy shares and can instead just... buy... puts? I can never get this right. -Paul
[2020-12-15 14:07:44] - a: Yeah, I guess I don't see any contradiction between saying, "I am happy and appreciate that Pfizer and Biontech funded research into a vaccine" and "I don't really care if the money came from the US or Germany or the government or private sector". I mean, where does it end? In order to fully appreciate nurses do I have to also know their gender? Sexual preference? Favorite food? -Paul
[2020-12-14 21:39:32] - "options let you trade shares that you don't own". this is true. the more i think about it the more i think options help with liquidity. you're helping people get in and out of their positions: not today, but some day in the future. ~a
[2020-12-14 21:38:19] - paul: true. i . . . guess? its probably best to learn something about them. alternatively saying "I mostly don't care about nurses" . . . or "I mostly don't care to learn anything about the nurses"? i'm trying to tie this back to your original statement where you were like . . . "I mostly don't care" about biontech. meh? ~a
[2020-12-14 21:30:28] - a: "isn't it hard to appreciate someone for helping you without knowing anything about them?" I don't know why not. I appreciate all the nurses and doctors and other healthcare workers putting in long hours and putting themselves in danger even if I really only know the tiniest fraction of them. -Paul
[2020-12-14 21:29:03] - a: Hmmm... do options increase liquidity.... I would think it does, right? Isn't it similar to fractional reserve banking? Without options, you can basically only buy and sell shares that actually exist, but options let you trade shares that you don't own (similar to how banks lend out more money than they have). Right? -Paul
[2020-12-14 21:28:24] - isn't it hard to appreciate someone for helping you without knowing anything about them? i guess its possible? ~a
[2020-12-14 21:27:14] - a: Like, I dunno, if I was poor and getting charity then I think I can both be thankful for the charity and not care if the person donating was male or female or black or white. -Paul
[2020-12-14 21:26:42] - a: Not being too hard at all. Sure. I do appreciate that money was spent by somebody. But for this specific vaccine (which is, what, one of three?) I don't really care if that money was spent by Pfizer or Biontech or the US or Germany. Thanks to everybody who spent money on it, whoever you are.
-Paul[2020-12-14 20:25:59] - paul: i'm not sure if options increase liquidity. can you help me answer that? i've been trying to learn more about how options effect markets. and i've been trying to learn more about how they work at a technical level. for example, i can't seem to see the "bid and ask" for each option strike+date: is that even a thing that is visible to us? on yahoo i only see the "last". ~a
[2020-12-14 20:23:08] - paul: so tell me to stop if you think i'm being hard on you . . . but "I do care that people have some level of appreciation": in this case the "people" is "you". you could have some level of appreciation for the money spent by recognizing who developed the vaccine: in this case, it was biontech. ~a
[2020-12-14 19:39:01] - a: Lower stock prices should also help out with options. Really hard to do things like covered calls on stocks with a $1k+ per share price tag. -Paul
[2020-12-14 19:35:56] - a: I don't see any contradiction there. I don't care which country funded it, but I do care that people have some level of appreciation that some entity (probably Pfizer as a private company) spent a bunch of money to develop it and it just didn't magically appear out of nowhere for free. -Paul
[2020-12-14 19:34:25] - a: Not sure I understand your point. I mostly don't care who funded the current vaccine in question (in terms of whether it is the US or Germany or Turkish immigrants). But I do think that in general people don't consider the cost to develop vaccines and research vaccines/treatments/medicines. -Paul
[2020-12-14 19:14:05] - paul: less liquidity in the order book is always bad. ~a
[2020-12-14 19:13:54] - paul: "not everybody can afford a share of Amazon or has access to fractional shares" its not even how many people can afford a share. its people that can afford a share that can't afford the amount of the company that they want. for example, if you can afford and want 2.5 shares, you have to buy/sell 2. now scale that to the whole market: you have fewer people trading fewer dollars. which means less liquidity in the order book. ~a
[2020-12-14 19:07:18] - paul says "I mostly don't care" then said the thing he doesn't care about "is often under-appreciated". check-mate, atheists. ~a
[2020-12-14 19:03:45] - paul: pfe and bntx shareholders, yes. the us government (and all world governments) didn't pay any money to pfiser or biontech. ~a
[2020-12-14 18:49:55] - a: I am torn about stock splits. On one had, I'm all like, "it's just cutting a pie into more slices!", but I also understand not everybody can afford a share of Amazon or has access to fractional shares, so it's nice for them to be able to get some shares. -Paul
[2020-12-14 18:47:37] - a: I have no idea who funded this particular vaccine, and because money is fungible, it's probably a messy answer. From what I understand, the US government dangled a carrot but didn't directly fund much, so maybe the answer is PFE shareholders funded it? Or people who buy medicines developed by PFE? -Paul
[2020-12-14 18:46:23] - a: No, I wasn't intending to say that is the case here. I am saying in general I think that, so I am probably projecting that here, without knowing if it is true. -Paul
[2020-12-14 18:39:26] - paul: of course. until we can buy partial shares (without stupid fees at time of sale) the more splitting the better. but a split of amzn, goog, or shop would be more helpful. ~a
[2020-12-14 18:36:38] - paul: "I think the cost to research and develop treatments and medicines is often under-appreciated": i completely agree with what you said technically. but, are you suggesting that the us federal government is who researched or developed the treatments or medicines? i'm not sure that is true, if so. pfizer and biontech employees, shareholders, and trial participants deserve 100% of the credit for the pfizer vaccine. ~a
[2020-12-14 18:21:14] - Tesla is looking like it might need another 5:1 stock split soon.
-Paul[2020-12-14 18:20:22] - a: Sure, there's probably some of that too (maybe most of it is that). We're mostly speculating on what he meant, unless there is more to the exchange. I'm probably projecting my own biases on him (in that I think the cost to research and develop treatments and medicines is often under-appreciated). -Paul
[2020-12-14 17:25:38] - paul: i disagree, sort of. he wasn't trying to be anti-immagrant of course. but, he wasn't merely trying to say that the US paid for research into the vaccine. he's trying to argue that the united states deserves praise and thanks. i'm not being partisan here, its what i honestly believe he honestly believes. at the core, he has a point. but, i still hate his position. ~a
[2020-12-14 17:10:09] - a: Yeah, I don't know. I certainly don't think this was a clear "March for Science owns Cruz" in my eyes. Like lots of political debates these days, it seems like a case where both sides are arguing past each other and trying to "win" instead of be right. I don't think Cruz's comment was supposed to be anti-immigrant, I think he was trying to say the US paid for research into the vaccine (which could be completely untrue). -Paul
[2020-12-14 16:37:49] - yah. Pfizer and moderna are both american companies. i take it all back. ~a
[2020-12-14 15:59:51] - a: Ah, okay. To be clear, I know next to nothing about who developed the vaccine (and I mostly don't care), I was just trying to explain what Cruz might have been getting at. -Paul
[2020-12-14 15:19:01] - i guess its not a part of pfizer, that part of what i said was wrong. partner like daniel said. it's a little weird they even call it the pfizer vaccine? ~a
[2020-12-14 15:18:48] - no. ~a
[2020-12-14 15:18:44] - a: Is BioTech a part of Pfizer? Its entirely possible I just thought they were corporate partners. -Daniel
[2020-12-14 15:17:43] - Paul: Pfizer didn't make 'their' vaccine but they are the distro partner for the German company who did here in US (is the way I understand it). -Daniel
[2020-12-14 15:17:01] - paul: no, not exactly. the part of pfizer that developed the vaccine is entirely in germany: info. ~a
[2020-12-14 15:15:11] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer Is Pfizer not an American company? Wikipedia implies it is. -Paul
[2020-12-14 15:11:57] - paul: after i posted that i started thinking maybe (maybe!) he was thinking about moderna? moderna is an american company. moderna is part of operation warp speed. i guess he has a valid point if canada is proposing distribution of the moderna vaccine? ~a
[2020-12-14 13:51:34] - a: I'm guessing he was trying to imply that it was an American company that developed it? -Paul
[2020-12-14 03:01:08] - what was cruz even referring to? ~a
[2020-12-11 17:53:24] - gotcha, ok. ~a
[2020-12-11 17:52:57] - a: Yup, I agree adding in property tax and health insurance paid by employer. To be clear, the number I had in my spreadsheet before this discussion was $90k+ because it was a far more simplified number (not taking into account taxes and stuff) so that was my initial goal number. -Paul
[2020-12-11 16:56:12] - paul: "a bare minimum number" i'm not sure i'd call this a "number". it needs to be adjusted for inflation. if you pick a "bare minimum number" and overshoot it, but don't update it for inflation, you might be undershooting it
~a[2020-12-11 16:51:32] - of course, i'm sure lots of people probably disagree strongly with my random number of 3.8%. ~a
[2020-12-11 16:50:28] - paul: ianacfp, but my argument (unless i'm wrong, and you've counted you employer share of your healthcare, and healthcare increases over inflation, and you've counted property taxes which can't be removed after your mortgage ends) is that you aren't finding a good bare minimum. ianacfp, but (60+20+10)/(1-.20)/.038, i'm guessing that your property taxes are 10k/year, might get you closer to a bare minimum? ~a
[2020-12-11 16:44:26] - a: "you're undercounting your yearly in-retirement-spending, and undercounting your divisor, so . . . you should be good?" While I would love to get as accurate a number as possible, I also am looking at it as a bare minimum number that I would ideally overshoot. So, for example, maybe my estimates say I need $2 million and I aim for $2.5 or $3 million instead. -Paul
[2020-12-11 16:42:51] - a: "where are you moving?!" No idea, but probably into a smaller house. Although, honestly, I wouldn't be opposed to trading one larger house in an expensive area like here for two smaller houses in far cheaper areas that we could bounce between (and maybe rent out when not there). That's decades in the future, though. -Paul
[2020-12-11 00:09:23] - daniel: yeah, i don't think i'm being overconservative on that though. inflation over the last 21 years has been 56% for all things, but 134% for healthcare. that's where i got the 2%/year over inflation from ((2.34/1.5556)^(1/21)). ~a
[2020-12-11 00:07:02] - paul: "I am trying to get a really rough ... estimate" imo, you're undercounting your yearly in-retirement-spending, and undercounting your divisor, so . . . you should be good?
~a[2020-12-11 00:06:49] - a: oO that is a lot over time. -Daniel
[2020-12-11 00:04:56] - paul: "real estate equity that we might end up tapping when we downsize" where are you moving?! daniel: "blow up any planning", yeah i've been accounting that healthcare will outpace inflation by 2%/year. which, is crazy, but its what i've been accounting for. ~a
[2020-12-10 22:13:36] - a: I have some healthcare spending accounted for but I definitely recognize that its one of those weird area's that could blow up any planning. Hopefully ACA stays around to some degree till we get old enough for medicare. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 22:11:19] - a: Ah, gotcha. That makes sense. Yeah, the $5k number wasn't hard and fast for me. I am trying to get a really rough (and conservative) estimate that I anticipate overshooting... and that also doesn't count real estate equity that we might end up tapping when we downsize. -Paul
[2020-12-10 22:01:28] - paul: what is the employer contribution on your healthcare? for me, my employer pays something like 90% of my healthcare. (what's more, healthcare almost always outpaces inflation) ~a
[2020-12-10 21:59:56] - a: How are you "accounting a huge chuck of change for healthcare"? I am not accounting for any increases in health care spending in retirement, which I know could be a pitfall. -Paul
[2020-12-10 21:58:47] - Yeah, TKD is for the kids, although maybe I go back once COVID is over and the kids are grown up! -Paul
[2020-12-10 21:58:34] - also hoi and property taxes. (those don't get removed when the mortgage ends) ~a
[2020-12-10 21:44:27] - oh i know what the problem is. i'm accounting a huge chuck of change for healthcare, and you guys maybe aren't doing that? ~a
[2020-12-10 21:41:25] - if you take out the mortgage, and car payments, and taxes, and kids (all of my kids), i spend ~120/year. so i wish 5k a month seemed like a lot. it all used to be much higher, actually, so if anything i've been practicing lifestyle deflation! ~a
[2020-12-10 21:37:57] - daniel: yeah, no kidding! i thought *maybe* he meant kids in tae kwon do??? ~a
[2020-12-10 21:37:33] - Paul: You need exercise in retirement! Gotta keep that Tae Kwon Do going! -Daniel
[2020-12-10 21:37:25] - a: I dunno, $5k a month still seems like a lot if you take out mortgage and car payments. -Paul
[2020-12-10 21:36:54] - a: Uh... yeah, I don't know. I know our spending right now is a little less than our income, so I took our income and subtracted out things like 401(k) contribution and estimated taxes to get an estimated take home pay of something like $10k a month. I subtracted out our mortgage, car payments, and a little more for stuff like Tae Kwon Do lessons. -paul
[2020-12-10 21:23:13] - "Life style inflation is most definitely a thing" true-dat. i fight against it with a vengeance, but apparently not as well as you do
~a[2020-12-10 21:21:30] - a: TX is a bit cheaper with some things for sure though. I think you could get by on 8k a month if you had too. Life style inflation is most definitely a thing. Tons of people get by on like 1500? 2000? a month. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 21:19:57] - a: Current monthly spending is ~~10k a month though it varies greatly with some less and some more *cough christmas cough* Currently that includes daycare and activities for the kids that will go away. It is somewhat of a moving target cause the number I put in for estimated retirement spending changes over time some. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:59:10] - paul: maybe it was just an example, but 60k/year (or daniel's 8k/month) is something i would have a hard time living on (as a family, even after my mortgage is gone). i assume you guys are assuming your kid-spending will go down before retirement, but even then, i'm still surprised. "I tried and our expenses are too volatile to track IMHO", you could instead track your income, taxes, and saving. but, it'll be equally volatile. ~a
[2020-12-10 20:54:44] - a: I'm not sure what you mean about budgeting. The numbers I provided were complete guesses and not necessarily drawn from a budget. I tried and our expenses are too volatile to track IMHO. -Paul
[2020-12-10 20:40:07] - paul: "I almost went with 20% in my example", yeah, 20% might even be too conservative. again, i probably have no idea what i'm talking about, but the 12% tax bracket is the marginal rate! your federal effective tax rate could even be less than your state tax rate (again, virginia is almost a flat tax). do people in retirement pay other payroll taxes on their ira/401k distributions? social security / medicare? ~a
[2020-12-10 20:31:58] - paul: (the really nice thing about capital gains, and non-tax-advantaged accounts, is your costBasis. downside is that is much harder to accurately model) ~a
[2020-12-10 20:30:41] - also, wow, you guys need to teach me to budget. i wish i could see 60k or 8k/month on my spreadsheets. don't you guys have like a million kids? ~a
[2020-12-10 20:30:02] - a: Yeah, I almost went with 20% in my example, but again, I want to be conservative. I guess most of this will be taxed as income and not capital gains, and we should be in a lower tax bracket. -Paul
[2020-12-10 20:28:05] - paul: yes, your math is sound. i personally wouldn't use 0.7 or 0.03.
~a[2020-12-10 20:25:44] - paul: 30% lol. IANACPA, IANACFP. if your retirement spending is $60/year though, you might not have nearly any taxes. the 12% tax bracket is 100k/year (over the standard deduction) for a married couple (this assumes a non-roth ira or 401k?). virginia taxes are pretty flat: something like 6% on basically all of your (non-roth ira or 401k) income? ~a
[2020-12-10 20:24:38] - a: Okay, so if I assume taxes of 30% and a need to spend $5k (post taxes), then I would need to "withdraw" $60k / 0.7 = $85k a year and so I should divide that by 0.03 instead? -Paul
[2020-12-10 20:20:46] - unless "I estimate monthly retirement spending" includes taxes. ~a
[2020-12-10 20:20:28] - right, you forgot taxes. ~a
[2020-12-10 20:20:14] - Or am I missing something in terms of accounting for taxes or something else? -Paul
[2020-12-10 20:19:57] - a: Fair. Okay, so let's just assume I estimate monthly retirement spending to be $5k. That makes it $60k yearly. Let's assume I want to be super conservative and choose 3% as my divisor. So would my retirement goal be 60,000 / 0.03 = $2 million? -Paul
[2020-12-10 20:05:17] - daniel: the issue is your income will be significantly smaller (especially if you ladder things into roth). and when your income is significantly smaller, the lower tax brackets (and the standard deduction or itemized deductions) eat up much more of your income. ~a
[2020-12-10 20:04:25] - a: But yeah taxes is accounted for as part of the spending that is covered by the X dollars a month goal. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:03:45] - daniel: ".15" sig fig. ~a
[2020-12-10 20:03:33] - a: Cause also they could just change tax laws in the future so its all somewhat of a guess. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:03:15] - a: Agreed taxes are hard. I mostly just make a number informed by our current effective tax rate. So I think our effective rate was like 19%? or something last year (I'd have to check to be sure) so I might be like 16% in retirement! -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:02:03] - So if I think I need 8k a month at a 3.25% SWR I need 2,953,846.15 dollars to retire. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:01:51] - daniel: do you account for taxes? if so, how? calculating taxes in retirement might be hard. i think they'll be very low, but not zero, and using different values for this gives me very different results
~a[2020-12-10 20:00:50] - I use 3.25% which gives me a magic number of 369.2307692 to multiply my monthly spending by. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 20:00:08] - Paul: My way is to estimate spending in retirement (I currently do monthly but thats how most of my current expenses are laid out so it flows) then multiply that by a number that is derived from my safe withdrawal rate. There are different rates you can pick. 4% is the standard for a 30 year retirement so you can go higher or lower depending on your risk / how long you think you will live. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 19:57:26] - paul: yes, your method is more conservative, but no, your method is plain wrong. it blatantly incorrectly estimates your inRetirementSpending (in a conservative way). you can console yourself if you want that you're just being conservative, but your system fails in this way: if someone who has a high savings rate uses your system, they would never be able to retire! ~a
[2020-12-10 19:55:19] - paul: 0.038 . . . sort of. ~a
[2020-12-10 19:54:48] - a: Also, when you say riskier divisor, do you mean something like 0.04 or 0.03? Not sure which way you mean riskier... -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:54:03] - a: I think I understand what you are saying, but my method should be more conservative, right? I think oftentimes it is also recommended to take 80% of pre-retirement spending instead of 100% as well. Basically taking my current pre-tax income and subtracting out money spent on mortgage should give me a higher number to aim for, right? -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:45:47] - paul: (also, i can't say whether 0.035 is the correct value, but i can say i plan on using a more risky divisor) ~a
[2020-12-10 19:43:26] - paul: no, there's a problem with what you said: you said "take our current annual income and [subtract mortgage]". i think you forgot to also subtract saving. worded differently, you need to take your in-retirement-spending-including-taxes and do the rest of what you said. worded differently: spendingWithTaxes = income - saving. ~a
[2020-12-10 19:41:07] - a: Yup. I know exactly what you are talking about. I have paid $7.14-$7.15 each month the past few months despite having a net usage of <= 0 kWh. -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:40:20] - (2) Take our current annual income and subtract out what we pay for our mortgage to estimate how much we will be spending in retirement (3) Divide that number from 2 by 0.035. Does that sound reasonable? -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:38:55] - paul: there's like a flat-fee just to have like a connection to the world. for instance if you use 0 kWh, you'll still see a bill. they don't itemize it so i can't tell you the exact amount, but it's about $10 to $15 per month. there was a time in 2014 where dominion incorrectly thought i was using 0 kWh (i informed them of their mistake), and i was still seeing a bill of ~$9/month. ~a
[2020-12-10 19:34:51] - a: Sure, and this is a good transition to a question I've had (and I know we've had here before). I'm trying to figure out a good target number for retirement (ie, I can retire when I hit $X). Here is what I am doing: (1) Assuming my house is paid off (tracking my efforts to pay this off in another spreadsheet). -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:32:56] - a: Thanks! I think I was getting charged something close to 11 cents per kWh before, so that lines up. All their data I could find kept indicating it was closer to 3 cents, though, which seemed blatantly wrong. I'm not 100% sure what counts as the "entire bill". What else is there other than generation, distribution, and transmission? Regulatory fees? -Paul
[2020-12-10 19:28:48] - daniel: you are right of course. i was simplifying. using your primary residence as part of your liquid portfolio still wouldn't make sense, but accounting for changes in the future is fine. ~a
[2020-12-10 19:27:34] - a: What if I'm going to downsize my home in retirement?! I get your point and its a useful distinction but there are times where you can get $ out of your primary residence in retirement although much more of a process than withdrawing dollars from an account somewhere. -Daniel
[2020-12-10 16:19:37] - paul: "wasn't sure if we were talking about retirement funds or overall net worth" neither? both? i plan to use non-tax-advantaged money in retirement. on the internet people have been using the terms "liquid portfolio" or "liquid net-worth" to mean things that you would liquidate in retirement: so, basically net worth less your primary residence. ~a
[2020-12-10 16:15:04] - paul: i can send you my dominion bills, if you want to read more. if it matters, i live in arlington, so my taxes might be different. there's schedule 1 if you want to read more, but it might be a waste of time: i tried to use schedule 1, and my bill is more. i'm not even sure schedule 1 applies to us. ~a
[2020-12-10 16:12:26] - paul: it varies. also, it depends on how much you're "counting". do you count your entire bill? or do you count just the part of your bill that accounts for charges due to generation, distribution, and transmission? if you count my entire bill i typically pay between $.10 and $.14 (per kWh), but if you pay anything, before deductions, on your dominion bill, we should probably discount those rates some! ~a
[2020-12-10 15:53:36] - Anybody know how to find out how much Dominion Energy charges per kilowatt hour in Northern Virginia? I'm trying to calculate how much money I'm saving with my solar panels but it is maddeningly difficult to find that number when you aren't being charged for energy consumption. -Paul
[2020-12-10 04:34:35] - a: Crypto has grown to around 2% or so. -Paul
[2020-12-10 04:34:05] - a: I wasn't counting because I wasn't sure if we were talking about retirement funds or overall net worth. If you count my non-tax-advantaged brokerage account, then individual stocks are closer to 70% (although that doesn't count Gurkie's retirement money). -Paul
[2020-12-10 04:29:51] - a: Yes, the vast majority is companies I have worked for. The rest (if I am remembering correctly) is a tiny amount in LegionM (https://legionm.com/). -Paul
[2020-12-09 19:45:17] - i also don't know why you wouldn't count crypto. i understand it might be hard to classify if its individual or not (i classify it by itself). also not counting your primary residence (or other worldly possessions in your primary residence) in your liquid portfolio is typical since you're not generally expected to go homeless to pay the bills. ~a
[2020-12-09 19:42:02] - you should count non-tax-advantaged brokerage account, i don't know why you wouldn't. ~a
[2020-12-09 19:41:20] - shares in private companies. oooooh. i assume those are companies you've worked for? if not, i'm very interested. (though even if so, i'm still interested, but less so
) ~a[2020-12-09 18:57:54] - a: Between my 401(k) (index funds), traditional IRA (Vanguard) and Roth IRA (Freedom Portfolio), about 62% of my retirement funds are in individual stocks. That doesn't count some individual stocks in a non-tax-advantaged brokerage account or stuff like crypto, real estate, shares in private companies, etc. -Paul
[2020-12-09 18:15:29] - my individual-portfolio is currently at 5% of my total portfolio.
~a[2020-12-09 18:14:32] - all this is to say, i don't put much money behind these (mostly uneducated) decisions. ~a
[2020-12-09 18:14:10] - i get lucky sometimes: the companies i pick are usually after very little research. and they're usually tech. i tend to lose money when i invest outside of tech.
~a[2020-12-09 17:20:34] - a: But energy companies aren't my wheelhouse at all, and not the type of stock I like to invest in. Doesn't at ALL mean that it would be bad. Just means it is not for me. I like to choose my pitches and I don't mind sitting out a ton of potential winners. You've obviously shown that you can crush me and the market with companies I don't usually consider. -Paul
[2020-12-09 17:19:04] - a: Yup. We're still going to for awhile need some type of "dirty" fuel to fill in gaps when the wind doesn't blow or sun doesn't shine. I'm just not sure if nuclear is going to be the candidate. I think public perception is too stacked against it (justifiable or not) which leads to government regulations which will likely lead to it being less economically viable than coal or gas. -Paul
[2020-12-09 16:01:25] - right. i know you're referencing what people think, and not what it is: but in some cases, it is dangerous and dirty. mistakes have high chance of catastrophe that negates all of the "cleanness" of the power. anyways, i'm still pro-nuclear because wind/hydro/solar/geothermal don't produce *enough* power. if they did, we wouldn't have such huge gas/coal electricity production: ~40% of electricity is from natural gas?! 30% from coal! ~a
prev <-> next