daxorid

His podcast is, by no means, his only business or income stream.

These people aren't wrong, though.

Powell has printed $6T, and the DXY has gone nowhere but up, along with the SPY and the QQQ and the DJIA.

Every single Thursday, we report more job losses than expected, and the market screams higher.

As much as we'd like to think there will be consequences to printing money, the evidence is in that there won't be, either in currency value or market confidence. MMT has proven itself correct.

Personal experience from someone who enjoys hunting and eating game:

The bigger issue is getting one's family on board. A spouse or kids who have grown accustomed to CAFO beef and chicken and not much else will be difficult to transition to gamier meats, to say nothing of offal.

> whose fault is it that Wall Street react to tweets?

He's not permitted to tweet anything that may materially impact the stock without prior board or general counsel approval, per his contempt agreement.

Obviously Jay Clayton is going to let him get away with it just like his prior violation of the Consent Decree, but for the brief period of time that the market forgets the SEC is toothless when it comes to Musk, this is nominally a big deal.

This is a ridiculous assumption. For two obvious examples, Art Bell attracted plenty of advertisers, as did early-day Howard Stern.

Some advertisers do, and some do not. Don't lump them all into a single bucket. YouTube is creating an environment that guarantees a future without Art Bells or Howard Sterns.

The concern you raise could easily be remedied with a single checkbox on the advertiser portal labeled "Display this Campaign on Fringe Content". The fact that with the enormous technical capability of Google, they choose not to do this and instead decide that they know the advertisers' preferences better than the advertisers themselves demonstrates clearly that this is about power and control, not ad revenue or serving the customer.

> We don't want money laundering

Can you explain this? It's never made any sense, at all.

1. If you earn excess unreported income, eventually the IRS will figure it out and come get their cut.

2. If you earn it through criminal means, you're already committing a crime for which, if caught, you will be punished.

Why is the act of obfuscating the source of income a crime? Who gets harmed by this, that isn't already harmed by either the potential crime committed or taxes evaded?

This method, while effective, is likely to be a significant frustration for the woman in this situation, given that cyclical high fertility usually coincides with high sex drive.

Then they do what everyone else does. Sell the asset and cut back on expenses.

Capital owners are not a special class of citizen. If you have assets and need cash, there is a way to convert one to the other. It's called a "market". You may have heard of it.

It seems that during recessions, asset-rich/cash-poor people, nominally Capitalists, turn into overnight socialists because making cuts to the ol' lifestyle is for the little people, not them.

> Though pretty much every ecommerce site of any significance is stressed to the max right now

This is certainly not the case for clothing retailers.

You very well may be correct, but I'd like to point out that for a broader sense of "doomsday narrative", living in or near DC while the rest of the US crumbles would be a lot like living in Rome when the Germanic tribes were overrunning the Empire's frontiers. DC is the absolute best place to be during an American empire collapse - until, of course, the very end.

Yes, but stocks are ripping higher on much worse jobless claims, housing starts, and Philly Fed numbers than expected, 113 unexplained cases of reinfection in South Korea, and the PPP fund being completely tapped out with three weeks to go in Congress' recess.

The market is fully convinced that everything is fixed.