Jump to content

Dahobbs

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    17524
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dahobbs

  1. Don't fuck it up anymore.
  2. And he does well at?
  3. I already said this. The Supreme Court should not have taken the case. The judge's original order should have stood. Then we could have teed up what will end up being the actual issue. All this has done is create delay without deciding anything.
  4. And none of that is close to an actual remedy for the guy in prison in El Salvador. You're trust that such a remedy will appear is misplaced. That's been my point. It continues to be my point. And it continues to be true. SCOTUS already neutered 1 possible remedy. And it impliedly neutered the second with its most recent decision.
  5. What does that have to do with trusting? The market is volatile because of a lack of trust. An investor that trusts whatever we are going to do right now is a fool. Playing the volatility is definitely an aggressive play that conceptually I agree with. But, as you've indicated earlier in this thread, it is also straight gambling. Gamble away I say (especially if you're hedging like you say you're doing). Just do it with open eyes. The investor that is "trusting" isn't doing that.
  6. You know what they say about a fool and his money...
  7. And when they comply by saying we've reached out, El Salvador doesn't know where he is/isn't going to return him, nothing we can do?
  8. Shocker, non-answer. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69777799/59/abrego-garcia-v-noem/
  9. Yup. Exactly my point.
  10. There was no reason to disturb the judge's original order. It just delayed getting him home/ the fight that is going to happen anyway. The lukewarm language was almost certainly to allow them to get it to 9-0. It doesn't actually require the government get him back. It just requires the government to maybe try, sort of. If the government does anything but get him back, you'll eventually have an order from the judge that requires them to take some concrete step that the government will deny based upon separation of powers. That's when the real fireworks will start. Again, celebrating this is way premature. Celebrate when the government actually gets him home.
  11. Celebrating an unsigned decision that doesn't really require anything and adds the language the government wanted regarding due deference to the executive branch's responsibility for foreign diplomacy seems a bit premature. It was a weak a decision that largely punted on the things that mattered. I hope he gets home. I hope the government actually tries to get him home. I'm not holding my breath on that. The correct action would have been to not take the issue up at all and leave the original order in place.
  12. I don't think he is saying $60 oil will cause the layoffs. Look at the title of the thread.
  13. My investment strategy hasn't changed. Hold and add over time. I tried to be more active during COVID, but I would have been marginally better off just holding. I do adjust how much invest automatically each month. Right now, more is going to cash savings to leave dry powder. If I were a more active investor and had the time to actually manage things, if probably make a play on the volatility that I expect we see over the next few years. But for the most part I think a bunch of transactions, outside of strategic rebalancing, just results in churn for churn's sake.
  14. Subsidizing or providing tax benefits for domestic production would be a more direct and targeted away to solve those sorts of strategic issues. Unpredictable application of tariffs will not encourage investment into domestic industry. They can be here today and gone tomorrow.
  15. Maybe, but the volatility isn't done yet. We went through this same song and dance with Canada and Mexico. Tariffs announced. Tariffs paused. Nothing really happens. More, bigger, better, tariffs announced after the pause. Expect more of the same unless someone has managed to grab the wheel.
  16. What do you think will happen in the new trade deals? What is the benefit that you will think will come from them? What, in your opinion, was the problem with them in the first place?
  17. Thinking that a trade deficit being reduced is necessarily a good thing is part of the idiocy. I'm not taking a bet if that is what you mean by our trade deals "getting better" because it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of trade and the global economy. The US excelled at producing a good that was highly valued, the dollar. Everyone wanted it. They would give us nice things for it. Now they don't want it as much, so they'll give us less stuff for it. That technically will result in a more balanced import/export stat line, but it isn't a good thing.
  18. No, they will not. That's ridiculous. Things that were already true or already happening will get get announced as if they are new. Some new things that have no practical significance or no realistic chance of actually happening (e.g., Apple investing hundreds of billions in the US) will get announced. And that market overall will be worse than it would have been if none of this had happened.
  19. 1) My car loses internet connection all the time. Never had an issue with the car shutting down. 2) Because it would be dead simple to remove the ability of the car to call back to homebase. There are enough of these cars out there, some in remote locations, that if this were an issue, it would have been discovered by now. 3) I'm 99% certain there are statements out there by the company that the cars don't brick if they lose connection, but I'm too lazy to go look them up right now. But yes, you're right. I can't definitively know there isn't some call home dependency that will brick the car if it can't connect within a few years (see Sony PS3). But I think the chances of that being the case are pretty close to 0.
  20. To the extent this is a serious question, the answer is no. The cars don't brick. Functions like maps and stuff wouldn't work, but the cars would otherwise work fine.
×
×
  • Create New...