swixi
Yeah, you get the version they choose. Admittedly, this is not something I run into often, but for example: the stereo remasters of the early Beatles albums sound terrible to me with headphones because everything is hard-panned (e.g. vocals are only in the right channel). These albums were originally mixed in mono and sound way better that way. It's impossible to listen to these albums in mono on Spotify even though digital versions do exist.
Personally, I think the cancel culture stuff will hit a tipping point and go the other way toward some mean. That sort of pendulum swing happens with culture all the time. Just like our society and laws survived the Hollywood Blacklist (and many worse societal upheavals), it'll survive this.
[1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/categories/32242 [2] https://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed49.html
A couple questions because I don't understand this very well.
Do we have an idea how much is actually sitting in a bank account vs being put into the market?
And, if people put money into stocks and park it there, wouldn't the velocity still be much lower than it usually is (when people are spending more on goods and services)? My interpretation of what's being shown here is that a large amount of newly "printed" money has gone into the stock market, thereby inflating asset prices. I don't see how low velocity refutes that.
This statement is so vague, I don't know what it means. Are you implying that all "mainstream actually educated economists" (whatever those are) are all in agreement about something? What exactly are they "right" about here?
Of course there's never a single thing that explains a complex issue, but the root of the current Fed's monetary policy goes back to Greenspan, so the poster's argument could easily be extended to that iteration of the Fed.
Also, the 1980s is when (modern) wealth inequality really started to take off. And it's much worse today.
> Human evolution and mutation is slow. By looking at what our primary diet was up until recently, we can understand the macronutritional and micronutritional needs of our body and how a vegetarian/vegan diet may or may not influence that.
What was "our" primary diet though? Depending on where a group of humans lived, presumably the diet varied greatly. It seems to me that humans can successfully adapt to a wide variety of foods. I'm sure early humans ate meat, but vegetarianism and pescetarianism date back at least to antiquity. And just because a diet kept us alive doesn't mean it's "good" for us in the modern sense. Say, hypothetically, that a meat-heavy diet increases the risk of early death. That would be irrelevant in the context of natural selection if that age is much older than that of typical reproduction. Our "goals" are different now, too. Does a person sitting at a desk all day require the same nutritional profile as a hunter?
> The main thing currently under scrutiny is the bioavailability and toxins (for lack of better term) of plant-based foods compared to meat.
This is interesting to me and something I've been researching too. It does seem that a lot of the "toxins" can be mitigated by using very old cooking techniques: soaking beans/lentils, cooking vegetables (rather than eating raw), sprouting, fermenting. These techniques can weaken the plants' defense systems, so to speak.
> Avocados, coconuts, olives and nuts stand out here, being more fat heavy, but as most of the population does not have a history with these compared to animal products, it is difficult to say its all good. Beyond that, it is very difficult to get all your minerals and vitamins just on those alone, which isn't the case for meat and seafood, which results in either tapping into the remainder of the veggies and fruit, or tapping into animal products.
To be pedantic: meat doesn't really have a lot of vitamins, right? If you want a complete mix of vitamins and minerals, you would need to eat the kidney, liver, brain, heart, etc, which for whatever reason we don't really do anymore (in the US at least). For the average person (again in the US), this means you will need to step into non-meat sources for e.g. vitamin A or vitamin C. I only bring this up because the topic at hand is specifically about meat, not necessarily eschewing all animal products, so they are presumably allowed in this context.
I'm genuinely curious as to what you're getting at. When you say "excess of carbohydrates", are you referring specifically to processed foods or refined sugars?
>Try finding fatty fruits and veggies: they were incredibly scarce for most the human population until the last 100 years.
Maybe fatty fruits and veggies were scarce for most humans 100+ years ago, but I highly doubt nuts and seeds were. But that doesn't really matter if we're talking about what we can do today. Things like avocados, olives, coconuts, and the above-mentioned large categories of nuts and seeds, are readily available for most people making these sorts of arguments. Plus, if you're vegetarian and not vegan, then you have access to cheese, yogurt, milk, and eggs. It's easy to eat high fat and low carb while avoiding meat, so the argument for eating meat to be healthy on these grounds seems quite weak to me.
The original post described options as a way to make your stream of money both "safer" and "steadier". I'm struggling to understand how introducing options can be safer and steadier than keeping money in a bank and creating an intelligent budget.
An example: One could argue that TSLA's current price is almost entirely speculation divorced from current fundamentals. Are you sure it will be "good for a lucky few and very bad for lots of people when it goes off the rails"? It's possible, but what should we do about that? Restrict people's ability to trade TSLA?
In the case of Gamestop, I agree with you, it will be bad for lots of people who get in late. I think more people should be informed about risk before entering the stock market, but I don't know if I agree with you that we need more government regulation in the market to do this. What would that look like?
Speculation is a huge part of the market, and "sophisticated investors" take part in it all the time. Tell me why certain popular tech stocks are trading at P/E ratios of more than 1000, or pulling in negative income year after year. Be sure to justify your answer using "fundamentals".
"Other states are high or low for various reasons: the outliers Maryland and Virginia, for example, both have dramatically higher Federal spending per capita than the average state, as they are near the physical headquarters for most of the Federal government and have significantly disproportionate Federal spending for procurement and Federal wages."
So, while Virginia is a relatively high-income state and contributes a lot of Federal income tax, they also have a lot of Federal employees, grants, contracts, etc.
(I was surprised at first too)
If this is regarding section 230, around which this dichotomy always seems to surface, then are you aware that the word "platform" does not appear in the text of said section?