docbrown

Barely half have some sort of 401k program and the average holding amount is only $40,000. Nothing to really gloat about.

Earners of $100,000/year or more have 5x the amount in holdings as compared to those earning $99,000 or below.

Only 14% of Americans are invested in individual stocks outside of a 401k program.

401k assets only amount to 17% of the total US retirement.

None of these numbers tell a great story because Americans are not saving for retirement. If they are, they’re barely saving a years worth of their salary.

Of course stocks have real tangible value or else we wouldn’t be able to buy and sell them. They’re not something that you barter with.

However, the majority of Americans do not associate stocks with voting rights. Only a slim minority of Americans own stocks to begin with!

Most laymen investors or readers believe that the stock market is an indication of how well our economy is doing — which it’s not.

The value of the stock market, like you said, is based on the buyers expectations. Which is what I said: the market is controlled by institutions and money managers. Those are the majority of your buyers.

> Personally, I think letting people go there own way as much as possible is the best course, and empowering the United Nations is pretty much the opposite of that.

As in a Native American reservation type of self localized governing? That’s the only way I could see any good coming from separating each individual locality apart and attaching their own executive branch to it. We currently have 50 seperate states which almost govern in that way but they still must answer to an executive branch and that can be confusing.

Should one branch have a say in all local decisions? Who gets to decide on which person makes those decisions for all? My fear would be that governing completely independent of any other branch could also lead to authoritarianism: if one person persuades the locals they have the best mind to guide them through troubles, they’d ultimately have the final say in decision making once they gain their trust and the ability to govern.

(Apologies if formatting makes it sound confusing, I jumped off my laptop and am instead currently using mobile. Will edit to clarify any discrepancies.)

I really hope these past eight months cement the idea in more peoples head that the stock market has little correlation to reality.

It fluctuates based on personal sentiment from institutions and money managers. Political policies may drive the market to react in a certain way from time to time but the only real 'direct' effects come from whichever Fed Chair is appointed at the time.

>but policy-wise he didn't really make any horrible decisions.

This is where the problem lies within our current political discourse: both parties have fundamental differences within themselves on what they view as being morally on the up-and-up.

Both parties view certain demographics in their own way and this allows them to engage in policies that allow them to accomplish their end goal while never causing harm -- because they genuinely believe they are not causing harm to anyone. They're only following through on policies that match their moral compass.

Until this country has a reckoning on what its fundamental values should be, there will always be a sense of distrust and skepticism between each other.

Reeder was a great app even when used on the iPhone 4, granted it was the best one out as the time. I believe Reeder 3 was the final version I bought before phasing out of using RSS. My Main Twitter account was started in 2009 so I think it’s fair to say that by 2013 there was more interesting real-time coverage becoming readily available through other sources instead of a RSS feed.

Now, as someone who has not used RSS since then, do all or many websites still have/advertise RSS feeds? I imagine each section now has their own obscure URL instead of a main feed hidden away in menus but I don’t know. Or if modern apps have a Internet-wide search where you can simply time in “News Site X” and it’ll populate their feeds.

Twitter has become easy to digest but I’d much rather prefer my news coming in vanilla again.

I don’t think they should or ever will step away from wood bats. It’s one of the few things that levels the playing field for all batters; instead letting brute force be the power behind the contact.

Aluminum and corked bats would ultimately give an unfair advantage to the user as compared to a wood slugger. It’s fine in minor league and collegiate sports as they do not follow the MLB’s stricter regulations but if they plan to aim for the major leagues, they should start training with wood.

—

On second thought, I think the only time there would be a change is if there were a noticeable impact on the environment and the amount of word being cut to produce bats. But since America’s trademark sport is baseball, I do not see this happening any time soon.