gehringer_2

I've been fairly aggressive for the last several years, but both because I'm uncomfortable with valuations and because I'm now older, I'm just pulling back in general, esp on anything related to the mega caps. I don't really like doing investment homework all that much. I'll spend a lot of time on it, buy some things, then let things ride quite a while between reviews. I think now is a good time to do some re-positioning.

This has been the Dems biggest problem IMO, as the middle class was becoming more an d more stressed, instead of going for the opening and moving into new economic thinking, they if anything hewed even closer to GOP trickle down, don't rock the boat, keep the corps happy, economic conservatism, and that included Obama. Biden was the first Dem to finally start taking on middle class economic issues but his efforts in that direction were lost in a lot of other noise. Part of this is the structure of campaign finance under Citizen's United - neither party is willing to risk alienating their corporate funders, but a big piece of this is just loss of intellectual creativity. They haven't had any new ideas/approaches to offer that they could make resonate as campaign assets. The only dems out there there that are willing to at least try to move the debate on structural economics (as opposed to just talking about more entitlements-though they do talk about that a lot too!) are the young progressives like AOC who are basically self-funding themselves through the internet. And of course Elizabeth Warren, because MA politics has always been a little different.

interesting note on the indexes. In the same way it has become the case that GDP is measuring gains in too narrow a segment of the economy to be meaningful for the general population, the S&P 500 isn't even a decent indicator of the overall health of American business because the market cap of the Mag7 tech companies have exploded to such huge numbers that that is all you see in what the index's value, the other 493 stocks hardly matter. My marker for this is that I was holding an S&P index fund and got a message from the fund manager last month that they had to suspend the normal fund by-law about how large a percentage of the index could be concentrated in a small number of stocks because it had come into conflict with the rule that the fund had to hold the whole 500 in proportion to market cap. That's about when I decided to get out.

It's such a good number the even the Federal Reserve doesn't use it. I think in general BLS is probably as good or better than the stat group anywhere in the world. I think the bigger problem is that we are willfully ignorant about paying attention to what the numbers do and don't mean. No greater example than the near total uncoupling of GDP and the economic health of an average American family. As long as we keep believing in the myths about certain numbers instead of paying attention better numbers that actually tell you something useful, we'll keep getting bad results for ordinary people. The old saw is that you get what you measure. We measure GDP so we keep getting GDP, even as the real socio-ecomomic health of the country goes down the tubes. The numbers may not be corrupt, but how we use them is getting to be.

what's funny to me about the Pistons is that at least by any conventional basketball wisdom, the team is highly flawed and "anybody can see" their weaknesses and the kind of player move they need to make to be better. That's not the typical reaction to the team with the best record in the league, which usually gets the 'look at how all these pieces fit together so perfectly' type treatment. On one hand, it's probably true that it's gotten to where the NBA regular season just doesn't pressure a team enough and that conventional wisdom will rear its ugly head quickly in the playoffs. But OTOH, if they do some winning in the playoffs, we may have to look at the possibility that they represent something of a paradigm shift in how to win in the NBA.

If reports are to be believed, player salary costs for teams are reaching $40M/yr. The only way to cover that is more games.

Newsom seems to be on a bit of a popularity roll in CA recently. Just as discussion - I tend to think CA is not quite as progressive as people in other parts of the country think. There is a lot of upper middle class suburbia in CA and those people are never really that far from a low tax GOP that could bring itself back to sanity. Plus, as Trump was able to leverage in FLA for example, the Hispanic population is not as liberal on social issues as progressives are either, but of course for the time being the GOP has now totally poisoned the well with whatever support Trump got from them in 2024.. But still, if you take immigration/racism off the table in a post Trump GOP (of course not likely but just spitballing here) that's another population that's not just going to fall in line lockstep with a strongly progressive Dem party. So bottom line, I won't be surprised to see a lot of intraparty sparks fly if (when!) Newsom decides he's running in '28. Personally, I have trouble trusting guys with perfect hair (Clinton, Newsom, Romney, Trump all qualify there)

Yeah - There might have been enough voter sentiment to get a third party going at that point but Ross wasn't really interested in building a movement, he just wanted to be President. I tend to think if a new party takes hold - probably eventually displacing one of the main ones, it will start local, become a established presence in a few states first, then organize nationally once they have an established constituency. I don't see the likelihood of a viable new party coming out of independent Presidential bids.

I'll be curious to see where they play him and how many places they play him in ST.

I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless. I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care. What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.

What's this "we"?(🫤) 'They' don't need us at all. All that money that used to go to the middle class - it's driving the markets just fine right where it is, and that isn't anywhere we are.

If there were a baseball name HOF, he's in it.

this - for sure.

I'd like to know what he does in practice. Sometimes with a super high energy player like Thompson they can hit shots in practice all day but under the pressure of game conditions there is too much adrenaline and they just can't marshall that instant of composure needed to get off an accurate shot. I'd rather it was a matter of form or footwork that he can practice his way through than that it's his style of play that make it hard for him.

agree with all this. I don't think the Tigers are worried about the offense either. Most the key players are still either still approaching or in their primes - almost no-one on the downside other than maybe Javy and McKinstry and fair chance of adding at least one ++ hitter in McGonigle. The flip side is that other than McGonigle and Anderson I don't see a lot of depth if guys start getting hurt. Two of the "insurance policies" from last season - Baddoo and Malloy are gone. But there are no perfect teams.

Speaking of gambling, Bitcoin is down 47% since October. Worst stretch since 2022. And the fun part, there is no theoretical bottom underpinning its value.

I've always felt there was a fair amount of revisionist history about 2017. I imagine part of it was just that JV wanted (quite properly) to say good things about his new team and team mates - and I don't care what anyone ever says, nobody gets traded from their first team and doesn't have mixed feelings at best about the management they are leaving. The truth was he was already back pretty much to 100% form in Detroit before he left. In his last 11 Tigers starts his era was 2.31, he struck out 84 in 74 IP against only 20BB, and only gave up more than 3 runs once. The idea that he had to get to Houston the figure how to pitch again doesn't really square with the facts. That's not to say Houston wasn't doing a much better job with their analysis, just that that wasn't what made the difference for JV. The real change came in about June while he was still in Det and recovered his old arm angle, which he had gotten away from during the abdominal injury. That brought back the old fastball, and with the better FB, the effectiveness on all his breaking stuff, which he said Houston helped with, went up. But every breaking ball is tougher opposite a better FB.

The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser." Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.

How do stats measure mental stamina? Flaherty's problems don't seem to be related to his physical pitching abilities at all, the deficits seem to be more in his concentration/mental energy. That could be one reason besides just bad luck that his stats look better than his results. Of course if that is that case it's also the kind of thing a guy might get better at mastering as this matures more.

One thing about JV is that he has always seemed like a guy with his feet firmly planted on the ground. I can respect a guy that reported his situation with that kind of candor and tact.

actually that is more or less where I was going. If you find both options that are viable candidates to win morally objectionable, no-one is forcing you to vote, but whether you don't vote or vote Quixotically you haven't helped your cause either way, which why I think the choice if you are concerned about an issue that is not at play between the viable candidates is to look for some other avenue to be active on that issue. But TBH, I don't think we are being particularly realistic by allowing the voter to say he *really* can't see enough difference between the two viable candidates to make a choice he believes is better overall. I'll allow that in 350M people I am sure there are some for whom that was really true, but most who parroted the cynicism that 'there was no difference between the parties' and then cast a 3rd party vote in any election since 2016 were either being willfully blind or unserious citizens. That is about as clearly as I can state what I believe on the issue.

Look - you engaged me in this thread - I was responding to @ewsieg. You asked me a question - I gave you an answer and you've got your panties all in a bunch. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.

No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. That sucks when you want to believe voting is a chance to stand for what you want, but it's the reality of it. The reality of who may win an election and who can not is not a matter of my hand waving or yours it just is what it is. Not all change is in play in any given election, it may have to be worked at by other means. Which is why if there is no choice you can make that you can realistically believe is both useful and morally supportable, don't vote -- go work on the issue by other means.

The weakness in your logic is that your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive and if it helped elect candidate A instead of candidate B maybe you helped kill someone else's spouse. In this hypothetical, your vote is going to make no difference to the policy that may kill your spouse regardless. You simply have to find other ways to work against that policy than your vote.

If a person seriously can't decide which of the candidates that has a chance to win is overall better for the country, my advice would be for them to stay home.