Readit Newsdocbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
A slim minority of Americans have a 401k?
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.
docbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
A stock is a voting right in a company, which among other things can be used to vote for distributing dividends to stock owners.
That is what gives it value to the purchases of the stock.
It is purchased because the buyer expects to earn more from it than they paid, and that they likely can pass it on later.
The value of stocks is certainly connected to real value, and it is one of humanity’s greatest inventions.
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.
docbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
> If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations.
Interesting that the other response to my post (thus far) essentially argues for the opposite. That a re-emphasis on local politics would be preferable.
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. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of good stuff in the Declaration of Human Rights, but to have a super-ordinate body that is in no way directly accountable to the people over whom it rules, and which attempts to reconcile increasingly disparate cultures, will result in authoritarianism and war.
> 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.)
docbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
> 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.
Do we need to agree on fundamental values? How might it be possible to avoid reaching a (likely impossible) agreement?
Perhaps we may not need to agree on every topic but there must be a discourse happening between each other in good faith. This rarely happens in our current political climate as most people (using Twitter as a sample group) is hyperreactive to any sort of criticism from their opponent.
If we, or all nations, want to come together, our first step is to recognize the importance of the United Nations. If we are able to understand that the United Nations can be an apolitical checks and balance to all countries, it may be a major step forward.
An ideal theory is that all countries begin living by the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1]. Incorporate this into the foundation of your countries government and it sets a tone and example for which type of moral values you prioritize within your borders.
[1]: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...
docbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
He did have tax cuts to the rich, which probably helped the stock market.
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.
docbrown commented on Biden wins White House, vowing new direction for divided U.S. apnews.com/article/joe-bi... · Posted by u/granzymes
It looks to me like so many are bothered by Trump because he didn't wrap all the lying and cheating and manipulation in a likeable, family-friendly public persona, like the presidents of the past did. He certainly said a lot of outrageous or false things, but policy-wise he didn't really make any horrible decisions.
So many of you want to desperately believe that the abnormal situation in the US can be pinned on one man and that once he's gone everything will go back to normal, or if not the situation will normalize to a certain extent. That just doesn't seem possible.
Trump is just the convenient scapegoat for the disastrous globalisation which hollowed out American industry, for the race but especially class conflicts which were never really settled and for the ultra-aggressive capitalism which creates many more losers than winners and for the two party system which is fundamentally vulnerable to corruption.
>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.
docbrown commented on Unexpected, Useless, and Urgent, or What RSS Gets Right charlieharrington.com/une... · Posted by u/whatrocks
For modern macOS and iOS users, Reeder 5 came out about a week ago and is pretty nice.
No .Mac syncing, but it does support iCloud!
NetNewsWire (from parent comment's screenshot) is also still around. Plenty of great RSS reader options.
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.
So around 18 years ago. That’s a long time for researchers that believed in this papar's conclusions to be going down the wrong rabbit hole. What a huge waste of effort and the lives of those with Alzheimer's.