Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Investment Ideas / Re: FCAU - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
« Last post by Liberty on Today at 10:34:21 AM »
Sad news indeed. Also wishing a good recovery.
Investment Ideas / Re: FCAU - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
« Last post by ajc on Today at 10:32:03 AM »

“During the course of this week unexpected complications arose while Mr. Marchionne was recovering from surgery and that these have worsened significantly in recent hours,” according to the statement. “As a consequence, Mr. Marchionne will be unable to return to work.”

Sending well wishes to Mr. Marchionne and his family for a healthy recovery.

Agreed, it's very sad. Hopefully he's able to enjoy a great, eventual retirement after all of this.

Investment Ideas / Re: FCAU - Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
« Last post by bathtime on Today at 10:23:20 AM »
“During the course of this week unexpected complications arose while Mr. Marchionne was recovering from surgery and that these have worsened significantly in recent hours,” according to the statement. “As a consequence, Mr. Marchionne will be unable to return to work.”

Sending well wishes to Mr. Marchionne and his family for a healthy recovery.
Politics / Re: Trump Derangement Syndrome
« Last post by doughishere on Today at 09:59:14 AM »

Spotted in Harrisonburg VA. Virginia plates. Russian flag. Is this a thing now?
Politics / Re: Russia Investigation.
« Last post by Gregmal on Today at 09:48:46 AM »

"France has its own version of Maria Butina, a young Russian woman named Maria Katasonova, who happens to be an ardent supporter of Marine Le Pen."

"On June 1, 2017, she posted this photo to her Instagram account.

It's of her and Alexander Torshin at an event at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in Moscow."

"Maria Katasonova's Instagram feed also includes photos of her and someone who appears to be Anna Chapman, the young woman famous for being part of a Russian spy ring in the US that the FBI rolled up in 2010."

Nice how spies can now be found and linked to each other via social media...

This kind of stuff might be legit, but this is starting to smell a little like the Salem Witch Hunts or McCarthyism. It's already at the point where Russians are fair game for widespread discrimination.
Politics / Re: Russia Investigation.
« Last post by Gregmal on Today at 09:45:18 AM »
So let me get this straight... Your kind, lobby up the wazoo for people illegally entering the country. But you are against freedom of information? Information to me, is an incredibly valuable resource and I value it right up there with constitutional freedoms because without accurate information, one has no freedom. I don't care where info comes from, as long as it's accurate enough one can make their own determinations. So when the score is 19-0 MSM vs Republicans, and the blatant favoritism for one candidate has gotten to such an extreme, yes I applaud anyone who is willing to bring forth the truth. When Robert De Niro, or Stephen Colbert, or Lebron is on Twitter saying "Trump is a bum" and his opinion is influencing the masses, yes, I applaud anyone or any country coming forth with something to balance things out(has anything Russia released ever really been contested? Was Clinton not set up to win the DNC primary? Was Wasserman Shultz not a world class POS?).

No, you haven't got it straight.  Your presumptions are ridiculous and I think you're repeatedly missing my point because of them.  "My kind" has a working interest in infosec and is concerned in general terms about foreign entities ever more brazenly attempting to undermine a horridly opaque election process and sow discord, distrust, animosity  and instability in the bedrock of the world's democratic system.  I'm not interested so much in what was hacked, but rather who was doing the hacking, and why... and how it is related to large scale disinformation campaigns via social media.

Nothing I've said runs counter to freedom of information.   Neither of us believes it to be absolute:  You don't think I should be legally allowed to hack and publish your emails, or steal the IP from your company, or other such things.  But more latitude is granted when it comes to political wrangling, and generally I think this serves the wider interest. 

My main point here is that I think this is a moment where the country could find some common ground reflecting on the integrity and transparency of the electoral system.  Thoroughly investigating who is trying to undermine it is a great place to start, IMO.  Having your president shrug his shoulders, particularly amidst speculation that he's doing so out of his own self interest, just poisons the well.  I think it has been a wasted moment. 

I would still appreciate knowing some of the many democrats who were offering money for leaks.  You threw this out as if it was obvious but I had only heard of the one case I mentioned.  So, in the interest of free information, please share.  Google did not quickly come to my aid.

Hacking my personal stuff as I do nothing but mind my own business and act as a private citizen is completely different than information being exposed about people running for public office. Releasing information regarding wrong doing by a candidate I guess is only OK if you are CNN or the Huffington Post? All of whom regularly obtain information in ways that either skirt or break laws. Russia obtaining and releasing evidence of widespread corruption with Clinton and the DNC I could argue was in the public's interest. Especially given all the hatred and anti Trump stuff going out, isn't it only fair both sides have light shed on them? Russia's hacking didn't effect the election results;  there really wasn't even any victims outside of Clinton and Schultz(who both by the way, had it easier than Trump did). 

I mean basically what you are saying is that there are circumstances where we can have a candidate running for the highest office in the land, and if for whatever reason(such as engaging in pay for play, being a symbol of the liberal movement, bribing or threatening people, or just plain being really likable or popular) substantial and material information is hidden or buried from the public- that this is ok? This is one of the main reasons I do think Trump should release his tax returns. However given the voracity with which these scumbags go after anything Trump related like piranhas, I don't blame him for not doing it, especially if he is currently being audited.

Which leads to the main point. Everyone KNOWS what Trump is. He is a narcissistic, self aggrandizing, pompous dbag who very likely made a lot of money in ways that are probably borderline, if not outright illegal. He isn't the perfect candidate however desperate times call for desperate measures and after 16 years of disaster between Bush and then Obama both parties brought this on themselves. Say what you want about how he conducts himself, or whether or not you agree with his policies, but he's the first candidate I can remember, who is doing EXACTLY what he said he'd do on the campaign trail. And while not ideal, I'd also say doing the types of things I think he probably did, but in the private sector is far different than behaving like a Clinton or Deblasio and doing it while acting as a public servant. 

For all the "OMG HE S HIDING SOMETHING" talk, there really is nothing left to hide. Every stone has been moved looking for ways to bury this guy since 2015. Your "show proof liberals where offering to pay for dirt on Trump but you can't count the massive democrat super PAC" is laughable. Here's another example

Everything relating to the campaign I'm sure has been looked at. The Trump colluded case is gone. Now effectively, the liberal issue is Russia exposing them, and how big or small of a deal this is to Trump. And since it's obviously not his top priority, nor should it be, its just adds fuel to their already off the charts hatred of the man, and they are throwing one loud, massive temper tantrum.
Politics / Re: Russia Investigation.
« Last post by no_free_lunch on Today at 08:17:41 AM »
Is there any actual evidence of collusion between Donal Trump and Russia?

I read the most recent Mueller indictment.  If anyone is interested here is the 30 second overview of the allegations:

- Russian agents hacked into DNC and other democratic computer systems, stole information and actively monitored computer activity.
- Emails taken were released via wikileaks and were credited by a public account (administered secretly by the Russians) called Gucifer 2.0.
- As background to the next point, Clinton previously turned over a server to FBI? and admitted to having deleted ~30k emails. 
- Attempts were made to spearphis HRCs closest personnel hours after Trump suggested the Russians find Clinton's missing emails.

None of this proves collusion.  It doesn't even attempt to prove collusion.  It's been a year and a half and this is all there is?
It is not in our best interest for any lawsuit to try to have HERA struck down. Cayne mentioned the mandate of 'protecting taxpayers' from the law itself. But down that same list at the bottom of that section of the law there's the 'companies must remain shareholders owned'. HERA protects us.

The way courts are getting around your #1  is by Cayne convincing judges the companies are operational, therefore going concern. So the conservator *must be conserving*. And since markets are functioning fine this reinforces the notion of conserving. The conclusion of 'nothing to see here' helps courts get to the promised land: "Conservator authority has not been exceeded so we are barred from review" .

As you know, my few posts have focused on nationalization as the key to shareholders being remunerated properly.

Although probably obvious to everyone on the board, the courts/judges have shown a distressing ignorance of simple rules of logic - hence your use of the word "convincing" in the quote. I thought that lawyers were supposed to understand high-school logic. Being a going concern is a necessary condition that the conservator is doing its job, i.e., "If a conservator is doing its job, then the company is a 'going concern.' " However, this is not a sufficient condition, i.e., it is not necessarily true that, "If a company is a going concern, then the conservator is doing its job." In the case of FnF, we have going concerns almost in spite of the conservator and certainly not because of the conservator.

Rather, since the courts have ruled that the NWS is "legal," all of the elements of a nationalization are in place. Here I define nationalization to be the legal (i.e., via the use of laws, even certified by courts, if necessary) seizure of private property (i.e., a company) by government. In this case the owners (shareholders) have not been properly remunerated for this seizure (i.e., nationalization) in violation of the Constitution.

Note that contrary to the reasoning highlighted by (but not attributed to) rros, if the conservator is taking entirely legal actions, this does not negate the fact the government has taken the property - legally (by definition) - as far as government is concerned. It is the failure to remunerate the owners for this property that violates the Constitution, which equates such ostensibly legal action with robbery. In this regard, the nationalization or property seizure is defined by the Constitution (Amendment 5) as a type of government purchase of property, which involves not only delivery of the property to the government but proper payment of the owners.

So the missing link in court action so far is the connection between nationalization, a legal action that is an element of a type of government purchase (legal, since the government and the Constitution defines this type of legal purchase) and a category of theft, in which a legal purchase has resulted in delivery of private property (i.e., the nationalization), but has not been completed by proper payment of the owners.

We can always hope that the courts will eventually see the logical error that has been overlooked by judges thus far and declare the NWS to be evidence that the conservator has usurped its duties and most importantly has purposefully failed to fulfill its duties. However, allowing the NWS to stand strengthens the argument that the companies have been nationalized without proper remuneration in violation of the definition by the Constitution of this type of "government purchase."

Actually, most individuals are not logical and fairly wasteful too. Homo Economics is a very rare species.

Even though individual humans don't always act logical, in general and over the whole population, the do. Don't look for individual cases in which it's not true but look at the general case. Long term life forms must act logical or their genes will slowly be erased from the gene pool through inability to survive and procreate.

Even bacteria act "logically" as a group in a large enough time scale ;)

Individuals make lots of dumb decisions every day. But the coutcome is P(decision) x P(execution) x P(surviving).
For most; P(decision) is either 50% right or 50% wrong. P (execution) is maybe 50% good or 50% bad as well. P(surviving) depends on the decision. Survive your screw-up and you can continue to play, fail and you're done. Assuming they can aim, someone choosing to play Russian Roulette has a 1/6 chance of failing. i.e. P(decision) = 1/6, P(execution) = 100%, P(surviving) = 0%

Humans are the most successful invasive species there is; right up there with the most robust of viruses, and even better than cockroaches ('cause we're more adaptable!). We know that it's almost impossible to get rid of a cockroach infestation; which implies that for any single event, for humans as a whole - P(execution) is <100%, and P(surviving) is >0%   

So what? An economy run by humans is much the same thing.
Whether an economic policy is good or bad, implementation (execution) is <100%, and surviving it is >0%. The economy is akin to the cockroach, and policies are just attempts at extermination.

Too much cockroach and we go back to the sweat shops of the early industrial revolution.
So we exterminate a few to ensure that humans remain the 'apex' predator, and let Darwinsm prevail. The cockroach, and not the human, gets eaten.

Different strokes!


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10