prev <-> next
[2022-01-24 15:10:31] - daniel: it's weird. when you look at the s&p500, or whatever, zoomed out over the past year, the drop since january 1st doesn't look so bad. but living it . . . yikes. my retirement accounts have taken quite the pounding, and i'm remarkably heavyweight in bonds. ~a
[2022-01-24 15:07:58] - daniel: do these get counted as covid deaths? i guess it's probably hard to quantify causation. ~a
[2022-01-24 15:06:20] - Fantasy investing had a rough start to this year. Oof. -Daniel
[2022-01-24 14:57:25] - a: Yeah - NPR has talked about them some. You got to the hospital for a heart attack or w/e and they test you for covid and you were positive but you weren't showing symptoms or having respiratory issues. -Daniel
[2022-01-22 15:35:56] - mig: sorry? i don't follow. you mean people are dying for other reasons and it's getting attributed to covid? or do you mean something else? ~a
[2022-01-22 12:32:46] - a: potentialy. I’d like to know how many of those are “incidental” covid cases. -mig
[2022-01-21 23:21:53] - mig: deaths have jumped since our conversation a few fridays ago: the US is nearing 6 deaths (per million, per day, 7-day average. ~5.6 today), and the delta-peak was 6 deaths. i think we're almost back to the ice trucks? ~a
[2022-01-21 17:28:00] - Maybe every election. Not sure if there are elections I care about every year. -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:27:45] - a: Yeah, I don't have any good answers. Every election is unfair in varying ways. My main point is that we can either focus on those and degrade trust in elections and likely harm democracy long term... or we can just roll with the punches and grit our teeth when we lose even if we think it was a little unfair. And I say this as somebody who "loses" every year. -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:26:07] - I personally think every election is illegitimate because the Libertarian candidates never get invited to debates and mostly have to gather signatures to get on ballots instead of getting automatic access. (At least partially kidding). -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:24:57] - Both sides can point to gerrymandering or changes to voting laws. There's always going to be some reason (impossible to quantify) to indicate any election is illegitimate. -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:24:53] - fair point. uuuuh, yeah, i guess maybe it does matter if it would have changed the results? either that or there needs to be a definition of how "widespread" an election problem is. ~a
[2022-01-21 17:23:36] - I worry that this kind of finger pointing at things that *might* have swung an election can be done every time. How about big tech censoring the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020? Similarly, how perhaps the Republican front-runner in 2024 is still mostly banned from big tech platforms? -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:21:30] - paul: to be clear, i agree we have no idea. ~a
[2022-01-21 17:21:04] - paul: "won the election fairly" can you define this term then? if i cheat (or in this case, *someone* cheats) and i would have won anyways, is it still cheating? ~a
[2022-01-21 17:20:08] - a: "the russian interference of the 2016 election is, like, super solidly confirmed" Is it super solidly confirmed that it made any kind of difference? Wikipedia makes it sounds like we have no idea (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections#Impact_on_election_result) -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:13:12] - paul: "won the election fairly" i'm definitely in the 65 percent there (i might count as an independent, depending on how they're counting). i'm actually surprised it's not much higher. the russian interference of the 2016 election is, like, super solidly confirmed. ~a
[2022-01-21 17:11:28] - a: Sure, yeah, sorry, government makes roads, and that's an important part of a discussion around walkable vs car-centric. I guess I was more thinking about buildings, like you said. It's hard to have ANY community (walkable or car based) that just consists of roads. -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:07:54] - Daniel: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/334972-poll-dems-dont-accept-trump-as-legitimate-president Also, this is super oddly worded, but it sounds like there was a poll showing that 65 percent of Democrats don’t believe Democrats have accepted that President Trump won the election fairly or that he is a legitimate president? -Paul
[2022-01-21 17:06:31] - paul: she shouldn't have done that. pointing out the russia thing is important. and the same with losing the popular vote. but "illegitimate president" is going too far. trump is, by far, the shittiest legitimate president we've ever had. ~a
[2022-01-21 17:04:08] - Daniel: "I don't think anyone claimed Trump wasn't the winner" Maybe semantics, but is this the same as saying he was a legitimate president? Because Hillary called him an illegitimate president. -Paul
[2022-01-21 16:38:09] - paul: maybe by "stuff" you mean just buildings? things that aren't roads with public parking? or rules that require private parking? ~a
[2022-01-21 16:35:35] - paul: "nothing really gets done without developers to actually make stuff" this just isn't true. do developers build all of the housing/commercial buildings? sure. but after developers create the housing, the local through federal government will literally come in and level whole neighborhoods to put in a highway. as an example, see every highway that goes through a city. ~a
[2022-01-21 14:41:48] - paul: I don't think anyone claimed Trump wasn't the winner - just that the system is kinda dumb if Clinton can win the popular vote and still lose. Also the whole Russia deal. But I don't think it was the same as when Trump lost. -Daniel
[2022-01-21 14:26:16] - And considering the last two times we saw a Republican replace a Democrat in a presidential election there were already rumblings about illegitimacy (Bush v Gore and Trump v Clinton), I can only imagine how bad it will be this time around (with the added bonus of Democrats being able to point at Republicans and saying they started it). -Paul
[2022-01-21 14:25:01] - Which, at this point, it looks like that legislation ISN'T going to get passed. So, the left is already primed (by its leaders) to think that any unfavorable outcome in the next election makes it illegitimate. Considering Biden's poor approval ratings (and Harris is not popular either), I don't think a Republican win would be too surprising. -Paul
[2022-01-21 14:22:36] - And also going back to Biden, I'm just concerned that we're seeing a repeat (to a lesser degree) of the 2020 election. Biden (and many democrats) are on record as basically tying the legitimacy of the 2024 (and maybe 2022) elections to whether or not some voting reform bill gets passed. -Paul
[2022-01-21 14:20:23] - a: I don't think we disagree. Well, maybe we do. I'm saying it's a combination of local government (the "street planners", I suppose) and developers. Local government can set up a bunch of rules (zoning), but nothing really gets done without developers to actually make stuff (and I'm sure the owners of the land have at least some input in how it gets used). -Paul
[2022-01-20 23:05:58] - maybe i said it weird? by "this method" i specifically didn't mean what biden is doing. ~a
[2022-01-20 23:04:01] - i agreed. ~a
[2022-01-20 23:03:58] - yah that's what i said. ~a
[2022-01-20 23:03:36] - a: going back to biden for a sec, it's one thing to stump for the election reform bill as a good thing to do. it's quite another to claim that without passing the bill, our elections are potentially illegitimate. - mig
[2022-01-20 22:23:32] - daniel: for what it's worth, low income families often have trouble affording a (safe) car. let alone a (safe) car for every member of their family. ~a
[2022-01-20 22:21:20] - daniel: i understand. having a lack of parking in a car-paradise seems like a living hell! but, usually a lack of parking is exactly what creates walkable communities. then the developers (can) come in and provide what people need in a walkable package. i don't think parking minimums are the only thing keeping us away from a walkable utopia. but they are one of the things. a abundance of parking is what creates car-only hellscapes. ~a
[2022-01-20 22:17:40] - a: I wouldn't be upset if some city somewhere tried it out. I would be curious if it ended up being an issue where low income families ended up getting screwed somehow because they were the only ones who bought it because everyone else wanted parking spaces and they ended up having a hard time dealing with lack of parking. I don't know that would happen but wonder. -Daniel
[2022-01-20 21:52:17] - daniel: "My guess is that it wouldn't sell" that depends. but shouldn't the developer have the choice? flipping the script (and removing the choice, in the other direction), many places in europe have parking maximums. ~a
[2022-01-20 21:51:21] - daniel: they have not always been a thing, no. looks like they started being common in the 50s? "Assuming they haven't then before did developers make housing with less parking?" of course, this has to be technically true if you pick an infinite timeline. but yeah, still true any way you look at it: the ratio of parking spaces per person has basically been monotonically increasing since the invention of the car. ~a
[2022-01-20 21:47:12] - a: Have parking minimums always been a thing? Assuming they haven't then before did developers make housing with less parking? My guess is that it wouldn't sell as well but I don't know that. -Daniel
[2022-01-20 21:45:05] - eliminating parking minimums would be a great start to a world where developers aren't forced to make bad decisions. but also, only very rarely are the developers even involved with the worst decisions. ~a
[2022-01-20 21:43:18] - paul: developers don't put in highways. that's vdot and the dot (fhwa). ~a
[2022-01-20 21:41:33] - paul: i don't agree. at. all. i know it's not a "lord", but it's also not the developers. it's the street planners, and the people who write the zoning/traffic laws and codes, and vdot, and the county board. the developers are almost always hamstrung by parking minimums and other bullshit. ~a
[2022-01-20 21:40:19] - a: I guess this gets into the weeds a bit about the negotiation between local government and who owns the land? Like, what if somebody owns the land and wants to put a juicy highway but the government wants a walkable utopia? What if the reverse is true? -paul
[2022-01-20 21:38:56] - a: "who gets to decide if a community will be walkable or not" I don't know if that's really how it works? Like, I don't think there's a community lord who decides if someplace is going to be walkable or a hellish car-scape. I think it generally just starts getting developed based on the people there? -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:55:27] - paul: "roadless community" for what it's worth, i've never hoard of a roadless community. walkable communities almost always have citizens with cars. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:53:53] - paul: the place where i think we'll disagree is who gets to decide if a community will be walkable or not. i'd like the kids, the elderly, and the disabled to have a say. the people who'd otherwise be forced to move out of the non-walkable communities, or suffer. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:51:44] - paul: "not every community has to accommodate everybody's preferences" this is fair. and i agree wholeheartedly! (yay). i guess . . . i wish there were more walkable communities to choose from in the dc area, and fewer non-walkable communities to choose from in the dc area. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:47:47] - a: Like, not every community has to accommodate everybody's preferences. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:47:22] - a: "seriously. i specifically said "*NO*. i do not!"." Okay, but you're also asking me how non-drivers can get around in the communities I prefer. Well, how would people who want to drive be able to drive in your roadless community? -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:45:34] - a: Along with grocery stores and restaurants and bowling alleys and REI stores and movie theaters and everything else I want without condensing all of those single family homes into high rises or something. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:44:12] - a: "what do you mean specifically?" I don't know, meaning a single family home? With a backyard? Something that isn't a 2 bedroom / 1 bathroom condo for a family of 4? I mean, look at a satellite view of the area where I live. It's almost entirely single family homes between me and the three closest schools. And yet those schools are STILL a 30 minute walk away. I don't see how you magically bring those schools closer... -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:41:22] - "I mean, why does every community have to conform to how you want things to be?" seriously. i specifically said "*NO*. i do not!". i said it with asterisks, caps-lock, and exclamation points. probably should have used bold. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:40:21] - a: Not live in a community which is more geared around cars and instead live in a community where a car isn't necessary? I mean, why does every community have to conform to how you want things to be? -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:40:11] - paul: "If people don't want to drive a car, then maybe the suburbs aren't for them?" you might be right here. but what about the people who can't drive a car. because they're under 16 or otherwise unable because of age or disability? ~a
[2022-01-20 20:39:24] - paul: "(1) Walkable (2) Space (3) Lots of Options. Choose.... 1? I suppose maybe 2 at most" please define "(2) Space". what do you mean specifically? (how many sq meters pp) because, i think when you get rid of (many) of the parking lots and (many) of the required setbacks (you're required to have a space between buildings and roads for some stupid reason) and (many) of the roads, i think you can literally have all three. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:36:47] - how are peolpe who can't use a car expected to have autonomy in your vision of a community? ~a
[2022-01-20 20:36:21] - a: "your vision of the perfect community" I still don't think you're understanding. It's NOT a perfect community. I don't think such a thing exists. I think there are pros and cons with every community. If people don't want to drive a car, then maybe the suburbs aren't for them? -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:35:18] - a: But if others prefer something else... great! I don't see the appeal of cities, but other people do, and that's fine! Go live in a city. I'm not trying to enforce my preferences on others. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:35:08] - how are people who can't use a car expected to have autonomy in your vision of the perfect community? ~a
[2022-01-20 20:34:30] - I disagree that there is some magical utopia where everybody has a nice big backyard and is a 20 minute walk from everything they want to do and also have lots of options to choose from. Every setup has some downside. I like the variety of options I have now, along with having a nice backyard for the kids to play in, and I'm okay with the trade-off being that I can't walk everywhere I want and sometimes need to drive. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:32:52] - (No choices meaning there is one grocery store) -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:32:31] - a: So, sure, I admit you can have a walkable community with tons of options.... if everybody lives in tiny rooms stacked 50 stories high. Or you can have a walkable suburban community, as long as you are okay with no choices for grocery stores and just like 5 different restaurants. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:31:16] - a: I think we probably are defining our terms differently or something. Here is what I am saying in a nutshell: "(1) Walkable (2) Space (3) Lots of Options. Choose.... 1? I suppose maybe 2 at most" -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:19:33] - paul: iow, autonomy is nice. how are people who can't use a car expected to have autonomy? ~a
[2022-01-20 20:18:44] - paul: in your world (like, the current one) how are kids supposed to get to school? how are the elderly expected to get to the grocery store? how are the disabled expected to get to the grocery store? how are kids expected to get to their friends houses? how are kids expected to play outside? ~a
[2022-01-20 20:12:11] - i'd like to have a high school, a grocery store, and a bunch of fun stuff to be a 20 minute walk away. that would be nice (and attainable). for everything else there's public transportation. and for everything ELSE, there are still cars and roads in walkable communities. they're just not the default for fucking everything. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:10:25] - paul: "then every single house needs to be densely surrounded by a person's favorite grocery store (just pick one!) and favorite restaurants and school of choice ... not to mention stores they might like" i'd replace a 5 minute walk with a 20 minute walk, but that's just me. can you imagine these things all being a 20 minute walk away? i can. it's basically what a walkable community is almost by definition. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:09:05] - paul: "Unless we're talking about extremely dense residential environments where everybody lives in a tiny condo in a high-rise, there's just not enough room for what you are proposing" many "walkable communities" are in the suburbs. i'm sorry you can't see this vision, and it's true that walkable communities are rare, but think of the webb st area, for instance. no "high rise" condos there. lots of people lived in detached houses. ~a
[2022-01-20 20:08:09] - a: If everything we want to do should be a 5 minute walk away, then every single house needs to be densely surrounded by a person's favorite grocery store (just pick one!) and favorite restaurants and school of choice (we don't send our kids to the default one) not to mention stores they might like (REI? Target?) -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:06:32] - a: "this is a problem with the community. kids in the suburbs shouldn't (IMO) be a 34 minute walk from school except in, like extreme cases" I don't see how this is at all possible. Unless we're talking about extremely dense residential environments where everybody lives in a tiny condo in a high-rise, there's just not enough room for what you are proposing. -Paul
[2022-01-20 20:02:28] - a: I think traffic is bad and cars facilitate traffic but I do think there are a lot of plusses gained from cities and I think giving them all up would not be a net win. Which might not be totally what you are arguing but it comes across that way some? I think I can be on board for more walkable - but even that is still going to have cars. -Daniel
[2022-01-20 20:02:10] - paul: if there were fewer "west ox" style roads, and fewer giant fucking parking lots everywhere, and some better public transportation, schools can and naturally would be much closer to people's homes. i don't want people to stop using cars, i want communities to exist where you can walk with your kids to school in much less than 34 minutes. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:59:47] - paul: "It's a 4 minute drive and a 34 minute walk" this is a problem with the community. kids in the suburbs shouldn't (IMO) be a 34 minute walk from school except in, like extreme cases. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:58:51] - paul: "I get that roads can complicate things" yes exactly. this. but add "roads and parking lots and commercial real estate and destinations designed to support this world". see "walkable communities". do i want all communities to be "walkable communities"??? *NO*. i do not! but i want more communities to be slightly more like walkable communities than they are now. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:58:49] - a: "or cyclists with children trying to get to school" It's more convenient for my kids for me to drive them to school than to have them walk to school. It's a 4 minute drive and a 34 minute walk. -Paul
[2022-01-20 19:56:37] - a: "and this is a problem with how we set up our community" I think this is an oversimplification. We don't want a costco on every corner. That's not even possible. There's no way all of my favorite restaurants can be close by where I live AND where other people live too. I get that roads can complicate things, but the fact remains lots of things are far away and cars make it easier to travel long distances. -paul
[2022-01-20 19:49:26] - in short, replace cyclists with everybody not using a car. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:48:43] - paul: "So in order to make cyclists feel better about themselves" when you want to say something like this, replace cyclists with the disabled and elderly. or just replace cyclists with pedestrians. or cyclists with children trying to get to school. or cyclists with children trying to get to their friends house. or cyclists with children trying to play outside. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:47:24] - paul: "almost every trip I take would be like 5-10x more difficult without a car" i know you don't agree, but this is a problem with many of our communities: that you *must* take a car to get to "almost every" place you want to go. that you don't have this choice of which tool to use. iow, yes, it will be 5-10x more difficult to not use a car, and this is a problem with how we set up our community. ~a
[2022-01-20 19:12:18] - a: I almost feel like we need to do one of those "wife swap" things you and I switch places and you are required to do a handful of my typical trips without a car to show me how easy it is. This weekend you get to bike to Delaware in below freezing weather with 3 kids and enough luggage for them for the weekend. -Paul
[2022-01-20 19:08:30] - a: I work from home and thus don't really have a commute, but still, almost every trip I take would be like 5-10x more difficult without a car. Ignoring the fact that it would take significantly longer, but exactly what size bike trailer would I need for our Costco trips? And I pretty much could never go if the weather was bad. -Paul
[2022-01-20 19:06:03] - a: Do we tell people who say they like having a washing machine that they just have too many clothes? Or people who like microwaves that they just are too busy and don't have enough free time? Seems like a total out of touch perspective. -Paul
[2022-01-20 19:04:36] - a: Yeah, sorry, that's just a total crap argument IMHO. So in order to make cyclists feel better about themselves, people are supposed to only take jobs that are within a few miles of where they live? I don't get this bizarre opposition to technology that makes most people's live easier and gives them more freedom. -Paul
[2022-01-20 18:34:05] - hey, paul, it's you! otoh, i'm changing my tack on the discussion of cars: i don't think the fault lies on people for driving in to work. the changes needs to happen at the suburban/road planning level. urban-sprawl creates problems with cars, not the other way around. two more tweets: 1, 2. ~a
[2022-01-20 17:49:32] - paul: "Can't we just say it's troublesome to cast doubt on the outcome of an election regardless of which side is doing it" i agree with you here. sort of? if you are "casting doubt" by engaging in a lawsuit, or proposing a new bill, then i disagree. this method of "casting doubt" feels legitimate and prudent to me. (assuming your lawsuit / bill have merit, of course. but starting a meritless lawsuit is its own, independent, crime) ~a
[2022-01-20 17:26:03] - "I'm impressed CNN is willing to have an article like this calling out Biden's lies" me too. it is refreshing. ~a
[2022-01-20 15:48:47] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/fact-check-biden-false-claims-first-year-2021/index.html I'm impressed CNN is willing to have an article like this calling out Biden's lies. I'll go ahead and do the throat-clearing that obviously Trump was worse, but that's an incredibly low bar. -Paul
[2022-01-20 15:21:41] - Can't we just say it's troublesome to cast doubt on the outcome of an election regardless of which side is doing it (and regardless of which side wins)? -Paul
[2022-01-20 15:21:01] - I'm kind of with Miguel. As somebody without a dog in the two-party fight, it's frustrating to see so much hand-wringing from the left about sowing mistrust in our elections when prior to Trump they were prime offenders (Gore, Clinton, Abrams, etc) and now that Trump is gone they are already pre-emptively saying future elections might be illegitimate. -Paul
[2022-01-20 15:10:29] - Daniel: Yeah, it is a weird sentence, but Biden is also known for gaffes and incoherence so I didn't think much of it. I honestly just figured he was trying to be clever and subtle about making the voting bill sound urgent without sounding like he was pre-emptively casting doubt on a future election.
-Paul[2022-01-20 15:05:16] - daniel: I dunno man, if I was concerned about faith in our election system, I wouldn't be mouthing off about even the possibility that the upcoming election may not be legitimate, especially if it's one that my party is forecasted to not do very well in. - mig
[2022-01-20 15:05:05] - mig: what a dummy. ~a
[2022-01-20 14:46:42] - paul: Thats a weird sentence - the increase in the prospect of being illegitimate - I would parse that as the odds increased which I think is probably true but doesn't address by how much? So like if there is a .05% more chance of being illegitimate then its a true statement. I think its hard to quantify how R voting laws affect that percentage though. -Daniel
[2022-01-20 14:37:40] - https://twitter.com/Jules31415/status/1484119743908954113 that's a major Y-I-K-E-S from me, dog. - mig
[2022-01-20 06:22:53] - https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/19/politics/biden-news-conference-important-takeaways/index.html I came here to post this before seeing Miguel's post, but I think it's worth noting that even CNN thinks it's a striking statement: "If, one has to ask, major voting rights legislation is not passed before the 2022 midterms, does that mean the results -- especially if Republicans win -- are illegitimate?" -Paul
[2022-01-19 23:02:27] - https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/1483931218810970112 seems relevant, based on our discussions. He’s less repulsive than Trump but this is pretty fucking repulsive. - mig
[2022-01-19 18:30:27] - paul: i noticed that too haha ~a
[2022-01-19 18:21:09] - a: The change on that first double quote for 2021 is driving me crazy. My guess would be something non-country related. Maybe: "Only rich people use it"? How about: "Bitcoin? That's a tool of white supremacy"
-Paul[2022-01-19 18:04:13] - maybe 2023. ~a
[2022-01-19 18:03:53] - my guess for 2022 will be "no big countries use it" or "only medium countries use it". ~a
[2022-01-19 17:52:57] - a: You can blame me for that, but it's because I feel like I can see the outrage clear as day even 3 years away. I am seeing the seeds being planted. If the Democrats don't win in 2024, even if the loss is to a non-Trump like DeSantis, people are going to be super-pissed and convinced the election was stolen, because that's what Democrats in power are prepping people to expect. -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:51:52] - paul: "the talk gets a lot more serious" about . . . passing a constitutional amendment that eliminates the senate? ~a
[2022-01-19 17:51:27] - a: Like, is talk of court packing and eliminating the senate and getting rid of the filibuster and the electoral college dangerous attacks on political norms? If so, I don't think that answer should change depending on what party is in power. -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:51:04] - it's so crazy to me that we keep constantly talking about the next presidential election, 1 year into a presidency. ~a
[2022-01-19 17:50:15] - a: There is when Republicans are in charge and the Democrats are holding the senate. When the roles are reversed, the talk gets a lot more serious. -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:50:08] - biden can't lose in 2024 if he doesn't run (touches head). ~a
[2022-01-19 17:49:24] - a: But once I start talking about Biden potentially losing in 2024, people here are fine talking about how "of course the election will be stolen" and "after all, shouldn't we eliminate the electoral college?" and "the filibuster just prevents things getting done". -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:48:59] - paul: but there is widespread agreement that we shouldn't eliminate the senate. ~a
[2022-01-19 17:48:10] - a: "like *what* paul?" Like discussing eliminating the Senate? I mean, you just have to look at the discussion here as an example. When Republicans talk about stolen elections or not holding votes on supreme court justices or whatever else, there's widespread agreement they're being idiots and trying to harm our political system. -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:45:49] - The courts weren't buying what Trump was selling, I highly doubt the military was going to back Trump when the majority of voters and congress and the courts were in agreement that he lost (even if they didn't already dislike him). -Paul
[2022-01-19 17:45:02] - Daniel: Sure, and Republicans are around 30% of the American population? So a majority of a minority. Also, voters are just one part. Trump lost soundly in court, so even Republican appointed judges didn't side with him. I know there's some disagreement here, but I really don't think we were that close to some sort of coup. -Paul
[2022-01-19 16:15:42] - paul: "Things like this". like *what* paul? describe to me the video you just watched (or the following transcript from warren you read). did warren agree we should eliminate the senate? eliminating the senate would be a constitutional amendment. ~a
[2022-01-19 15:49:34] - The disfunction isn't because of the filibuster, it's because the slim majority feels like they have a god given mandate to do whatever they want, and once they realize they can't, they just keep throwing temper tantrums instead of just moving on to other matters (and there ARE other matters they could be working on). - mig
[2022-01-19 15:35:24] - And now they're doing the same with the Election "reform" bill, pounding the table, even though they have no leverage over some of the key votes they need (repeatedly calling Manchin a racist and other such names probably won't get him to vote for it or nuke the filibuster). Meanwhile, another reform bill that has bipartisan support (related to the reforming who the electoral votes are counted) is just gathering dust. - mig
[2022-01-19 15:28:55] - daniel: It's not just filibuster but just general disruption of anything getting done. The democrats basically held a bipartisan infrastructure bill hostage for months because they were pounding the table for the BBB bill demanding it be passed together with it. They're still pounding the table for BBB even though they have absolutely any leverage to get the votes for it, and in the meantime nothing else meaningful is getting done. - mig
[2022-01-19 14:56:53] - paul: Also Colbert suggested it - Warren didn't really endorse it. I think most people would prefer the version of congress that actually does things and votes on things rather than the version where everything gets filibustered. I'd have to go back and look but did things get filibustered at the same percentage level back in the day like pre WW2? -Daniel
[2022-01-19 14:53:57] - https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/NPR_PBS-NewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_B_202110251104.pdf
[2022-01-19 14:53:55] - paul: "most people saw through and were united against" - you realize most R's still think the election was stolen and that most R politicians either go with this or believe it? (npr poll had it as 75% of R's) -Daniel
[2022-01-19 14:05:14] - But the second Democrats can't force their agenda through a razor-thin majority then people who are taken pretty seriously by the media start going to court packing, eliminating the filibuster, abolishing the senate, getting rid of the electoral college and all sorts of other huge changes to our system of government designed to benefit one party and there's not nearly as much pushback. -Paul
[2022-01-19 14:01:54] - Yeah, Trump wanted to overturn an election, but he was an unsophisticated and unclever buffoon who most people saw through and were united against. If he said anything about packing the court or abolishing the senate then people would lose their shit and it would be all over the media. -Paul
[2022-01-19 14:00:55] - https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/01/18/stephen_colbert_to_liz_warren_what_if_we_just_get_rid_of_the_anti-democratic_senate.html Things like this is why I am just as worried (if not more so) about Democrats when it comes to trying to seize power versus Republicans. -Paul
[2022-01-19 07:18:49] - no way. eric trump was born on january 6th, 1984. that has to be a joke. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:40:51] - https://wset.com/news/at-the-capitol/arlington-alexandria-fairfax-schools-set-to-defy-youngkins-order-on-mask-mandates This seems to be a big deal to some parents of kids in VA (ie, some people are freaking out over the governor's order). FCPS seems set to defy it. *Sigh* -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:40:06] - ok. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:39:43] - a: "0% tax bracket for long-term capital gains is pretty fucking high" Oh, sure, but that's just one of the aspects of the rules around capital gains taxes that I say we get rid of. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:38:57] - paul: but yeah, i think the 1/2 or 1/4 terribly masks the real issues. are you including the retired? are you including the (temporarily) unemployed? are you counting students? most people will discount this in their mind, but if you include the normally employed, most of them pay taxes of many various kinds. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:36:55] - paul: most retired people won't pay capital gains. 0% tax bracket for long-term capital gains is pretty fucking high (83k if married in 2022, 109k if married in 2022 after the standard deduction). ~a
[2022-01-18 21:36:46] - a: Point taken about the 28% (and I do believe it's a useful counter-argument), but I will push back and say you specifically said "income tax".... but I suppose you didn't say "federal income tax".
-Paul[2022-01-18 21:34:13] - paul: "roughly half" nah. maybe 1/4: falls to 28%. still 1/4 is higher than i thought it would be. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:33:11] - a: I mean, the obvious retort is that it's very possible we're talking about different wealth cohorts, but also maybe not as different as we think? Probably a lot of retired people paying zero taxes and those people might be the ones with capital gains too. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:31:56] - a: So... am I okay with some Americans paying no income taxes? I guess. I mean, it already happens to roughly half of them anyway. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:31:34] - you got me there . . . ~a
[2022-01-18 21:30:50] - a: "you're basically proposing that someone who only makes money from their assets pays ZERO income tax" https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-of-americans-paid-no-federal-income-taxes-in-2020-tax-policy-center-says.html You say that as if it's some unacceptable thing to happen. It already happens a ton. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:29:35] - I know it's slightly inaccurate to say that the IRS makes us do all this ungodly complicated tax work that they also have to do but won't tell us what we owe and if we get it wrong we go to jail.... but it's close enough and still patently ridiculous. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:29:21] - paul: in your system someone who has 100% of their income from capital gains pays nothing. nobody will go along with your system. even the rich would assume this is the quickest way to a violent revolution. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:28:08] - a: "i don't propose we change much to the tax code" Yes, this is where we differ. I'm not interested in one less bracket. I want to burn the whole thing down. Make it the size of a postcard! "save making the irs do all the work that *they do anyways*" 100% this, though. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:27:32] - paul: i argue that we need them so everybody is affected in the same way. you're basically proposing that someone who only makes money from their assets pays ZERO income tax. and you're fine with that. and i am not. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:26:34] - a: I agree with your statements about the wealth tax, but I feel like it mirrors my complaints about capital gains taxes. Both are nightmares in terms of compliance, and incentivizes all sorts of weird behavior. Yet lots of people argue that we need them to make sure the wealthy are paying enough. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:26:22] - maybe we could create brackets?
j/k but seriously, i don't propose we change much to the tax code, save making the irs do all the work that *they do anyways*. ~a[2022-01-18 21:25:48] - "I guess I don't get where the line is drawn" it would be a gradual line. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:25:28] - paul: "with fewer people being effected negatively" well gain, i'd like all 100% to feel the effect the same. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:24:54] - a: And if you take that out to the logical conclusion.... I mean, I guess I don't get where the line is drawn. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:24:39] - a: "this is also incorrect" But should it be? For example, we could tax the bottom 20% of Americans some amount that would definitely affect them, or we could raise taxes on the top 1% a probably smaller amount and affect them less than the less wealthy would be, right? That seems like a less net impact of "effect" on people (with fewer people being effected negatively). -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:24:32] - paul: "assuming we're okay with drastically different levels of taxation on people" this is also probably not as correct as you think it is. i'm not for making our current system more progressive (except, maybe only technically, by removing a bunch of deductions). ~a
[2022-01-18 21:21:42] - paul: i've also constantly said that i'm against a wealth tax. (this mainly comes down to execution though. determining someones wealth is literally impossible and difficult to even get an order-of-magnitude, whereas income and realized gains are much more measurable.) ~a
[2022-01-18 21:20:20] - "I feel like the obvious solution that you would approve of is massively soaking the very wealthy and letting like 90% of Americans go tax-free" this is also incorrect. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:19:54] - a: "i can't imagine a world where that would be a reasonable interpretation of what i said" I know, but assuming we're okay with drastically different levels of taxation on people, I feel like the obvious solution that you would approve of is massively soaking the very wealthy and letting like 90% of Americans go tax-free. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:18:34] - a: It sounds like your main point of scoring how much somebody is effected by taxes is wealth? ("means taxing the poors a lower percentage of their wealth"). If that's your concern, then I think the wealth tax is for you, right? Everybody pays like 20% of their wealth to the government every year? Would be a nightmare to enforce and figure out, but that's secondary to impacting the wealthy as much as the less wealthy.-Paul
[2022-01-18 21:18:31] - paul: "What if we make one person pay all the taxes? That way 99.9999% of people are effected the absolute least." you're right, that i wasn't specific enough, but i can't imagine a world where that would be a reasonable interpretation of what i said. how about, exactly 100% of the people are affected the same amount: we'll need to define how a person is affected by an expense, but i think we can do that, right? ~a
[2022-01-18 21:16:29] - "let's have them do the entirety of our taxes too" yes, that is what i meant by "amount owed", sorry. ~a
[2022-01-18 21:16:13] - a: And honestly, the real answer is to lower the total amount taken in (spend less, tax less). -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:15:51] - a: "taxing everybody in a way that effects everyone the least" I feel like that's not specific enough. What if we make one person pay all the taxes? That way 99.9999% of people are effected the absolute least. Would that qualify? Or does the difference between the most effect and least effect count too? -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:14:10] - a: "i basically only care about that. simplicity is secondary" This is weird to me. Why? I legitimately don't understand this obsession over making the rich pay a lot... especially with the trade-off of making your life more complicated. -Paul
[2022-01-18 21:12:38] - a: "you don't even need to do that today unless there's some sort of non-usual buyout situation" Huh? How else do I figure out my capital gains? And sure, if we're going to have the IRS calculate our cost basis in this hypothetical, let's have them do the entirety of our taxes too. The ultimate simplification. -Paul
[2022-01-18 20:57:05] - paul: "i basically only care about that" to turn this into a more logical argument: taxing everybody in a way that effects everyone the least, means taxing the poors a lower percentage of their wealth. if you don't agree, can you explain why? ~a
[2022-01-18 20:15:00] - paul: "IRAs and 401(k)s and 529s and HSAs with all their varying rules". that's correct, but i'm not sure why we need all dozen of them (403b, 457, etc). i'd compress them into one thing: IRA or gtfo. ~a
[2022-01-18 20:13:15] - paul: "I actually don't care much about how much the rich pay in this debate" i basically only care about that. simplicity is secondary. ~a
[2022-01-18 20:12:36] - paul: "We still need to track cost basis" no, we don't. 1. you don't even need to do that today unless there's some sort of non-usual buyout situation. do you calculate cost-basis today?! 2. did you read my last sentence? you definitely wouldn't have to calculate cost basis if the irs was literally telling the total amount owed and you were (very optionally) correcting them. ~a
[2022-01-18 20:10:47] - a: Heck, even going back to trying to simply calculate how much pre-tax income I need to have $X post-tax is a ridiculously complicated function thanks to our progressive tax brackets. -paul
[2022-01-18 20:09:57] - a: I actually don't care much about how much the rich pay in this debate. I'm just really annoyed by how all these attempts to get the rich to pay the right amount makes my life (and taxes) so much more difficult. -Paul
[2022-01-18 20:08:45] - a: So maybe my mistake was not saying "radically simplify". Because sure, your suggestions would simplify things, but something like 90% of the complexity would still be there. We still need to track cost basis (and input them manually every year) and would still have IRAs and 401(k)s and 529s and HSAs with all their varying rules. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:54:54] - paul: simpler is relative: but that's basically baked into the word "simpler". your example was intentionally dumb. why would that be your example?! ok, here is my proposal: "no wash sales". no "long term vs short term". simplify how "amount owed" is calculated (jfc, the current algorithm is crazy). the irs will be required to tell you your amount owed (and you can correct them if you made a transaction not recorded by a broker). ~a
[2022-01-18 19:50:32] - a: Give me an example? I mean, sure, we can make things simpler by reducing the tax brackets to 2 (Under $50k pay no taxes, over $50k pays 90% taxes). "Simpler" is relative. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:49:49] - paul: "And that's how we get to the ridiculously complicated system we have now" a false dichotomy. you can have it be much simpler and (as) progressive (as it is today). ~a
[2022-01-18 19:49:19] - a: Yeah NBA doesn't want to take on China. Lots of $$ there for them. (This came up before though different when Morey tweeted out support for Hong Kong and it caused a big stir) -Daniel
[2022-01-18 19:49:15] - a: And that's how we get to the ridiculously complicated system we have now. Every single tax has to have multiple different rules to make sure the wealthy aren't just paying more in absolute terms, but more in relative terms as well. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:48:49] - paul: "You think I should, though" that's right. "we also have to make sure they pay a large percentage of their.... income? wealth? in taxes as well". that's right. it's not just me that thinks this way, though. it's a super-majority of americans. very close to 100%? maybe 99%ish? ~a
[2022-01-18 19:47:28] - paul: "I don't view the tax code solely as a tool to soak the rich" if the *only* way you can think to make the tax code simpler also makes it way less progressive, i doubt we'll find common ground. i honestly think you can do both (make it simpler and keep it as progressive as it is today), but don't want to, because of your political opinions. ~a
[2022-01-18 19:47:10] - a: "you'd have to replace it with a thing that mostly just affects billionaires" No, I wouldn't. You think I should, though. I picked a sales tax because I figured the wealthy spend a lot more money on things (homes, yachts, fancy vacations, etc), but I forgot that in addition to paying a lot more in taxes, we also have to make sure they pay a large percentage of their.... income? wealth? in taxes as well. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:45:16] - mig: and the rest? do they have monetary incentive to ignore china doing illegal shit? ~a
[2022-01-18 19:44:51] - a: "how about we get rid of a progressive tax and replace it with a regressive tax? do you even hear yourself?" Yeah, but what you're not getting is that I don't view the tax code solely as a tool to soak the rich. Our overly complicated tax code is mostly overly complicated because of efforts to engineer things so it is more progressive. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:44:39] - a: yes, warriors are nba. - mig
[2022-01-18 19:23:09] - paul: a wealth tax (ugh). ~a
[2022-01-18 19:22:02] - paul: if you wanted to remove the capital gains tax entirely, you'd have to replace it with a thing that mostly just affects billionaires. so basically, the exact opposite of a federal sales tax??? ~a
[2022-01-18 19:21:18] - paul: "All of my brilliant ideas are doomed" i ask this seriously, can you come up with a brilliant idea that isn't doomed? because if you wanted to simplify the capital gains tax, i think it could be done, and i'd be all about it. ~a
[2022-01-18 19:20:39] - paul: "How about we get rid of capital gains and replace with a federal sales tax?" how about we get rid of a progressive tax and replace it with a regressive tax? do you even hear yourself? ~a
[2022-01-18 19:18:03] - a: "it absolutely shouldn't be this" Oh, sure, but none of my asks have much of a chance of catching on. All of my brilliant ideas are doomed. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:17:28] - a: I don't know where abolishing capital gains taxes is on my list of big huge changes, but it's probably top 3. Hard for me to think of a single tax rule that causes more headaches for me every year. How about we get rid of capital gains and replace with a federal sales tax? -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:16:30] - paul: "We get rid of capital gains taxes" also, please acknowledge that if you want to propose something that might actually catch on, it absolutely shouldn't be this. you're kinda wasting an "ask". ~a
[2022-01-18 19:15:35] - It would be so beautiful. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:15:30] - paul: "feel free to drop the topic if you want" NEVER. not paying capital gains sounds very last on my big-huge "changes to our tax code" list. it's not about "fair-share", which is totally meaningless, it's about efficiency of tax levying. taxing w2 and capital-gains at a similar rate seems the most efficient to me. ~a
[2022-01-18 19:15:21] - a: We get rid of capital gains taxes, there is no need for any of those vehicles and regulations. Your IRAs and 529s and 401(k)s and HSAs could all just be your brokerage account. -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:14:09] - a: Like, we make people keep track of the cost basis and specifics of every one of their transactions, along with create multiple different vehicles (IRAs, 401(k)s, HSAs, 529s, etc) to let people get around it, along with random rules around tax loss harvesting and limits on contributions to accounts and income limits for other accounts... -Paul
[2022-01-18 19:13:18] - mig/daniel: for some context. warriors is nba? and they get a lot of money (very-indirectly) from china? if so, it feels related to that upton sinclare quote ("it is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it") ??? ~a
[2022-01-18 19:12:38] - a: "your system suggests that billionaires shouldn't pay any taxes at all?" (Sorry I am late to replying and feel free to drop the topic if you want). I guess that would be a side effect, but this whole obsession of making sure the wealthy pay their "fair share" while also encouraging everybody else to invest creates a nightmare of taxes and regulations. -Paul
[2022-01-18 18:58:44] - daniel: interesting thought on the auto-increase. hmm, i'll think on that. it'll be annoying to implement, but still, probably for the best. ~a
[2022-01-18 18:31:14] - I guess the things that stuck out weren't just that, but listening to the full podcast episode where he goes on some whataboutism on China, actually questions whether the genocide of Uyghurs is actually happening, and asserts China isn't a dictatorship. - mig
[2022-01-18 18:31:06] - mig: yikes as well. -Daniel
[2022-01-18 18:30:29] - a: That idea for defaults seems solid to me. Yes to target retirement based on birth year. I've also seen lower starting but with auto yearly increase (again unless you go change it) so you start with just like 2 or 3 percent but it increases by 1 or 2 percent every year automatically unless you go change it back. -Daniel
[2022-01-18 18:15:37] - a: what does it mean? nothing overall I guess. I just found it sad. - mig
[2022-01-18 17:40:05] - daniel: ok cool, thank you for that input. for what it's worth, i'm already doing all of those things except the self-directed one. (i'd do the self-directed one, but it is very expensive). i'm also not technically doing the opt-out thing, but maybe i'll set that up before we hire on a next person. so, what should the opt-out-defaults be??? 2%-traditional + 2%-roth, everything into *the* target-retirement fund for your birth year? ~a
[2022-01-18 17:06:33] - a: Make 401k opt out instead of opt in - make sure you have quality options with low/lower expense ratios - offer a solid match - low vesting time - reduce fees where possible (not always in your control though). Once those are done I think things like true up or self directed options can be looked at but those seem more like extra / bonus things to me I think. -Daniel
[2022-01-18 16:40:50] - mig: what's it all mean? can you summarize this video because i've seen it posted elsewhere, and i was like "ok?". asked differently, will there be any repercussions from this? ~a
[2022-01-18 16:38:08] - daniel: understood, thank you for your input. i won't change it then, and i'll visit with the people it does affect. "my list of 401k changes" do you have any specifics here? i do run our 401k, and my biggest change in the past 10 years was changing our provider from paychex-401k to ascensus (uses "vanguard" branding and vanguard plans). ~a
[2022-01-18 16:37:43] - https://twitter.com/michaelsobolik/status/1483105641656897540 Warriors co-owner: "nobody cares about the Uyghurs". that's a major Y-I-K-E-S from me dog. - mig
[2022-01-18 15:45:35] - a: In terms of the true up I don't think I have strong feelings for or against. I think its definitely a thing that won't affect many people and for those its affecting I would tend to guess its not a huge deal for them so it would be low on my list of 401k changes if I were in charge of my companies 401k. -Daniel
[2022-01-16 05:07:30] - paul: if you already own the company, i think you're proposing that they don't pay any taxes at all. you can avoid the stock grant, and the dividends, by starting the company. your system suggests that billionaires shouldn't pay any taxes at all? ~a
[2022-01-16 05:03:56] - paul: uuuuh, huh? you used to be limiting your 401k contributions to 19.5k (or whatever) minus the employer match. and now you know that you can go a bit higher? ~a
[2022-01-16 05:03:19] - a: "yes, but at the cost of nobody wanting to get w2 income" How else would they get paid? Options? Stock? People still get taxed on stock grants. -Paul
[2022-01-16 05:02:44] - a: "good talk then, right?" Well, it doesn't make a huge difference. My employer doesn't really offer a $40k match.
-Paul[2022-01-16 03:46:42] - among other things. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:46:39] - paul: "you have to admit it would be a huge simplification". yes, but at the cost of nobody wanting to get w2 income. i think it'd create some shitty situations honestly. i'd instead push for simplifying stuff: they've already simplified it a bunch by having the brokers figure out your cost-bases for everything. remember when we had to calculate that ourselves? but i'd get rid of (the concept of) wash-sales and short vs long trades. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:43:55] - paul: "I always tried to calculate my limit as mine + match. Whoops" haha, yeah, good talk then, right?
~a[2022-01-16 03:43:23] - paul: "The general limit on total employer and employee contributions for 2022 is $61,000 (or $67,500 with the catch-up contribution)". so yeah, besides the employer, you're also actually able to tap into this super-high limit, and it's the basis of the "mega-backdoor roth" (after-tax contributions and in-service withdrawals). i've checked and my current 401k company refuses to do mega-backdoor for some reason. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:41:25] - a: I always tried to calculate my limit as mine + match. Whoops. -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:41:08] - a: Ah, interesting. I never knew that.
-Paul[2022-01-16 03:41:00] - paul: the employer limit is fucking CRAZY high. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:40:54] - paul: oh shit no, sorry. the "limit" we typically look at is for the employee only. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:40:27] - a: So an employer contribution can put you over the maximum limit? I guess that is what confuses me. -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:40:13] - paul: you probably *could* do a true-up every paycheck. but that would be a headache for the software and accounting people to figure out. so they just do it once at the end of the year. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:39:52] - a: I can understand why.... but you have to admit it would be a huge simplification. I HATE logging capital gains taxes in April. -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:39:22] - paul: "where would that employer contribution go?" it might depend, but in the situations i've seen: it shows up as a normal employer contribution at the end of the year. it doesn't need to "go" anywhere except into the "employer contribution" bucket? ~a
[2022-01-16 03:37:52] - "just get rid of capital gains taxes". jeese, i'm all for changing and simplifying the tax code to the max, but i'd never consider this to be a good idea. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:37:51] - a: "t's an allowance for the employer to catch-up" But... if you already hit the max in June.... where would that employer contribution go? -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:37:09] - a: I guess that''s good, assuming it's legal, but it's a pain that it has to be a special thing and frankly I wish there just weren't limits on 401(k)s at all (or heck, just get rid of capital gains taxes and not have 401(k)s at all). -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:36:45] - paul: "An allowance for the employer contribution to go above the max?" no not really. it's an allowance for the employer to catch-up (they don't use this word because "catch-up" is used to describe something else) with you for the second part of the year, at the end of the year. nothing different or special would happen at the beginning of the year. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:34:48] - paul: if your company has a "true up" system, then at the END of the year, the company would contribute 6% match for the second half of the year (or some smaller amount if you didn't contribute up to 6% average for the year). ~a
[2022-01-16 03:34:45] - a: Ah, and so a larger percentage of your max contribution is made up of your contribution instead of your employer? I think I understand how that could work now. What is the solution, then? An allowance for the employer contribution to go above the max? -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:33:18] - I think I said this before, but it wouldn't surprise me to see certain markets (Southeast Asia? Latin America? India?) have greater sustained growth in their markets than the US over the coming 5-10 years. Many of them have more favorable tailwinds and probably aren't as overvalued. -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:33:10] - paul: if i contribute some crazy-high percentage (say 20% or something) and my company contributes up to a 6% match, then we'll do fine until i hit the max. if i hit the max half-way through they year, then for the second half of the year, we'll BOTH contribute 0% (i'll contribute 0%, and the company will match with 0%). this is all "normal". ~a
[2022-01-16 03:31:33] - a: "history suggests that this might even be an unreasonable (unlikely) expectation" Yup, I almost made it like 5-6% because I felt like that would be more reasonable but I honestly do expect a little higher than that. Not sure it really matters, though. This starts to get into my belief it's impossible to really predict what is going to happen next so don't bother trying too hard. -Pau
[2022-01-16 03:30:03] - a: Re: True-up. I guess I still don't understand it. Is there some issue where people aren't getting the full match they should be? If so, why? Is the issue that the max would put you over the maximum contribution limits for the year? -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:26:58] - (and things have been stable in the global p/e ratio the past 12 months) ~a
[2022-01-16 03:25:14] - paul: you have a good point on world p/e ratio. it is much lower. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:17:43] - paul: i guess my question is, what your thoughts are on true-up, even though they don't affect you? would you care if your company had it or didn't have it even though it didn't affect you directly? there are people i know that are affected by it? ~a
[2022-01-16 03:16:13] - paul: "6-8% for the indexes over the next 5-10 years" history suggests that this might even be an unreasonable (unlikely) expectation. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:15:35] - paul: then you won't be affected by true-up. if you go over the max, and you therefore aren't contributing for part of the year, a true-up would allow the employer to "true-up" their contributions to whatever percentage of your salary. ~a
[2022-01-16 03:14:41] - a: But I wonder about your "international exposure" comment. Do other country's stock markets have the same high p/e for their markets right now? -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:13:55] - a: If you're suggesting we might have pulled forward a lot of growth in the stock market and are looking at much lower returns in the near future.... I generally agree. I'm mentally expecting something like 6-8% for the indexes over the next 5-10 years. -Paul
[2022-01-16 03:12:31] - a: Hmmm... I'm not entirely sure I understand what a 401(k) match true-up is still. My last company didn't have a match, but my current company does. I try to contribute as close to the max as possible without going over. Is it possible I am missing something? -Paul
[2022-01-15 17:14:37] - (even if you have international exposure? the "all countries" color on that graph is dark-blue) ~a
[2022-01-15 17:13:25] - paul/daniel: our current P/E ratio for the s&p is nearing 40! i feel like CAPE (p/e) is the closest thing we all have to a forward-predictor on the stock market. thoughts on this? correlation is loose, so we *might* be seeing as high as 10%/year of growth over the next 10 years, but the odds of that happening are looking exceedingly small. ~a
[2022-01-14 19:53:56] - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/589636-dems-block-cruzs-nord-stream-2-sanctions-bill the filibuster is racist until it .. isn't. - mig
[2022-01-14 19:52:58] - paul/daniel: i asked this exact question four years ago, and wonder if you have any new data or info from the past four years. does your company have a 401k match true up? and/or do you have any opinion on 401k match true up? fwiw it OLNY matters to people who contribute the irs maximum (20.5k in 2022). ~a
[2022-01-14 19:46:01] - https://twitter.com/AriBerman/status/1481690640194973696 Where for Biden in 2021, we're getting tortured logic like this to try to explain how members of the president's own party not getting rid of the filibuster to allow the Democrats to do whatever they want is some horrible offense. -paul
[2022-01-14 19:43:55] - Anyway, the whole point is that it's a lot easier for a President to "act like a king" when their party has >=50% of the seats in both houses of congress along with the tie-breaking VP vote. In 2020, Trump basically wasn't going to get anything done that Democrats didn't approve of. -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:37:49] - a: Also, are we getting any actual moderate policies and legislation? Or is it just that the moderates are holding back the more extreme stuff? -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:37:17] - a: "i think it's fair to say that the most moderate parts of both parties control it" I guess? Like, sure, some Democratic moderates are holding up some of the more extreme elements of Biden's agenda, but it hardly feels like they are in control when you see how they are getting treated in the media and by members of their own party. -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:25:10] - paul: i like your graph btw, because it does at least apply some data about how close things are. though of course, its more complicated than even that graph displays. ~a
[2022-01-14 19:24:45] - paul: "who controls it?" when things are this close, i think it's fair to say that the most moderate parts of both parties control it (or more accurately nobody controls it). i think that this logic needs to be applied evenly, so it wouldn't be fair to just say that about today. isn't this the world you like to live in best though? where moderates control everything? ~a
[2022-01-14 19:19:38] - I mean, I am fine with nuance, and I get that it's the slimmest of "majorities" if you can even call it that... but it seems like a weird objection to make. Is it a filibuster proof majority? No, but the Republicans don't control Congress, so if the Democrats don't control it.... who controls it? -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:17:45] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses#/media/File:Combined--Control_of_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_-_Control_of_the_U. Somebody should tell wikipedia? -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:12:11] - paul: "That's how we have defined control for forever, no?" no. specifics have always mattered and for things like this, nuance matters, and nothing is boolean. ~a
[2022-01-14 19:10:47] - a: No, I was pretty positive Trump was going to lose in 2020 and I suspect Biden will either not run or lose in 2024. -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:10:09] - a: "can we revisit history please?" Amash's first tweet was in 2020, right? Didn't Democrats have control of Congress then? I don't understand why you and Daniel keep pushing back on the idea of the Democrats having control of Congress now. They have the majority or tie+tie breaker. That's how we have defined control for forever, no? -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:09:17] - paul: "than I am confident now that Biden will leave in 2024" uuuh, what?! you think he'll win reelection, or you think he'll subvert the result of the electoral college??? ~a
[2022-01-14 19:08:51] - a: "i see him as 2 days from having a total spiral into senility and/or going on some serious medical leave (25th amendment, etc)" Hah, I think we agree on that. In fact, I think those 2 days were like 2 years ago. I just don't think that matters much. They'll keep wheeling him out there as a figurehead as long as Kamala's approval ratings are lower. -paul
[2022-01-14 19:08:32] - paul: "Trump had a Congress in control by the opposite party" can we revisit history please? trump's party had control of congress for half of his presidency and i believe biden's party will have control of congress for NONE of his presidency (though maybe i'm wrong, only on a technicality) ~a
[2022-01-14 19:07:59] - "biden will leave office (very likely) in 2024. is there some reason you don't think this will happen?" I'm about as confident Trump was leaving office in 2020 than I am confident now that Biden will leave in 2024. -Paul
[2022-01-14 19:07:09] - paul: we definitely see biden differently. i see him as 2 days from having a total spiral into senility and/or going on some serious medical leave (25th amendment, etc). ~a
prev <-> next