awinder

Bailing out companies keeps people in jobs & backstops the assets that comprise retirement/pension systems, both of which keep people in their homes. You could find ways of keeping more people in their homes but they’d almost certainly include bailing out companies, it’s easy to implement and cost effective.

One does not simply become a citizen, most have to convert from a work visa to a permanent visa (requires wait time + process), and then more wait time before being allowed to apply for citizenship. So there’s workers at twitter who can’t merely say “the boss is crazy, I’m out of here”. They have to line up another job and get their visa in order before they can go. No one is asking you to care or treat people differently, though people might judge you based on the thoroughness of your understanding & compassion for the situation.

Because there was the specter of a protracted legal battle to close the Twitter acquisition and that risk (of both time and result) was priced into a 25% discount on the acquisition price. That’s why the stock bumped to 50 on the acquisition news and fell off as the deal became imperiled.

You can balance the real dual-interests at play here through progressive taxation, allowing for transfers of wealth that only marginally accelerate society-wide wealth disparity. The slaves/serfs lingo is a little stretched when it applies necessarily to other people, and those other people have had their entire lives to benefit from the wealth of the other person anyways.

By:

1. Not labeling people who disagree with you as “part of a professional managerial class” / people who don’t want to work (propaganda) 2. Actually citing personal experience (just saying you have personal experience isn’t a debate/argument)

You’re:

1. Not actually detailing your life experience

2. Repeating tropes and stawmanning arguments that others aren’t making

3. Framing people you don’t agree with as “PMC people”, i.e. you’re not engaging with their arguments

Your final sentence applies in spades to how you’re arguing across the thread. Ridiculous.

“All of this has led to weird idiosyncrasies, euphoria, and contradictions. Stocks ballooned, tripling in value since 2009”

This is like 9% compounded for 13 years, which is in line with historic averages.

“Things were different before the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In those days, sailors were required to train for a regular Navy profession, known as a rate, before they could attempt the SEAL course. Dropouts from the course could return to the rate they had trained for.”

Pre-2006 you’d basically do as you suggested, you’d make it into intelligence/nukes/etc. and then you’d try out for SEALs. Now you play a <1-in-10 lottery where you have to avoid an overzealous training instructor kicking you while lugging a 300lb log amongst other challenges. If you don’t make it you complete a filler job class under SEALs and you’re stuck.

You’re straw-manning this issue & the challenges detailed. SEALs is hands-on work, no one is making an “I’m-too-good” argument because they went to college. There’s people who almost made it through SEALs who would be immense assets elsewhere in armed forces — and prior to 2006 they would have been.

Berkshire had a (especially relative to the market) very good year and it’s the highest weighted constituent in XLF. Also a lot of the active fund companies had this same sort of trend where they went about 2x in market cap in a 12-16 month period in 2020-2021 and then gave about half the growth back (or more) in 2022.

Digital goods are taxed and my apple app receipts all have a tax line on them (US-based).

You would compare your fund to an index maintained by a company like MSCI or S&P Global which covers Fictionaland. And you’d probably have a number of indexes for Fictionaland that could match depending on how your fund is composed.

You can compare Fictionaland funds to the S&P 500 and this can be a useful exercise. But you can’t determine if your Fictionaland fund is “good” unless you compare to a representative index — this is one with overlap of securities, but with likely different weights from the underlying index. And you’re going to have peer funds by other companies with slightly different methodologies, you’ll all compare to the same index, and your relative performance amongst competitors will mostly determine if you’re doing good.

Edit: I missed the management/performance question. If you run an ETF you are going to report holdings frequently, typically every day. If you run a mutual fund it’ll be less often, like every 60-90 days. So over time, you’ll be able to understand a bit about the trading methodology.

Corresponding index to the fund, usually called the benchmark. US Large cap mutual funds commonly compare against sp500. A small cap index might compare against Russell 2000. MSCI has a number of all-world indexes that a global fund could compare to.

SCHD is a Dow Jones U.S. Dividend 100 Index tracker, that example just compares performance of 2 indices. Beating the market would refer to a fund (closed/open doesn’t really matter) that beat its corresponding benchmark.