You can ignore authors, whether they are producing too much noise or being needlessly provocative, by clicking the yellow unhappy when reading their post.
- Manlobbi
Stocks A to Z / Stocks B / Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A) ❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
Notwithstanding the best efforts of our host, partisan politics seems to always intrude on this board🤷♂️
No. of Recommendations: 21
Notwithstanding the best efforts of our host, partisan politics seems to always intrude on this board
True, and we all must continue to remain vigilant. I apologise to whatever extent I have exacerbated the problem.
But one could be a bit more optimistic about it...politics has intruded, for sure. But if you break it down into "politics is justifiably more relevant to investing than usual", "politics just because there are interesting discussions and information to be shared among friends", and "partisan politics and rants", there actually hasn't been much of the latter. I'm not saying it's a good idea, just noting that at least the infestation has not been a particularly bad case. Scritching in the walls, but the foundation isn't crumbling.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Notwithstanding the best efforts of our host, partisan politics seems to always intrude on this board."
True, and we all must continue to remain vigilant.
Ken Fisher always says "that you should ignore politics in your investing." I read their weekly market summary and whenever something like that comes up in the news, they always lead off with that admonishment.
For the 30 years I have been reading him I could not tell which party he favored. That's how tightly he kept it in check. I weakly suspected it was the Democrats, since he & his company is in California.
. But if you break it down into "politics is justifiably more relevant to investing than usual"
It has been exacerbated by the mainstream news media drumming up emotions to get eyeballs.
Nowadays with the internet & google/tiktoc/youtube, people can become (in their minds) an instant expert in a topic they have never heard of before -- such as tariffs, infectious diseases, riots, war & weapons, etc.
No. of Recommendations: 0
" Ken Fisher always says "that you should ignore politics in your investing." I read their weekly market summary and whenever something like that comes up in the news, they always lead off with that admonishment."
Another guy who sent a rep to my home. The salesmen told me I had way to exposure to brk, I wish I could recall what he suggested I buy but he only lasted an hour on the visit. Last year we discussed the impact of trumps win on big pharma, solar, junk food etc. Politics matter, bigly.
No. of Recommendations: 12
Ken Fisher always says "that you should ignore politics in your investing."
I think it's generally good advice, but for completeness you really ought to add the word "usually". Or even "almost always".
Usually politics doesn't matter enough to business or investing outcomes to change what constitutes a good investment decision, and usually the headlines in the paper matter even less. But there are occasional exceptions.
I remember putting nearly half my investable net worth into Telmex just before the 1994 peso devaluation, for example. It did fine, measured in pesos!
For a small recent example, per this post...
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?pid=309189479 ... all Americans on fixed salaries have had a pay cut of about 10% so far this year, and all those with US dollar cash or bond balances have just taken a ~10% haircut, as a US dollar buys less "stuff" than it did. Lots of local prices have also fallen in terms of their global purchasing power cost, at least for the time being, so the hit becomes visible only gradually. You get very different numbers with different starting dates, but the dollar buys less than at any time in the last 3 years, so it's a real loss.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 2
“ Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
The bill would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media. It will apply to all prescription drug advertisements. “
https://www.wsj.com/articles/senators-to-propose-b...
No. of Recommendations: 7
“ Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
This is already the rule in almost all rich countries.
I have heard that the pharma companies wouldn't mind. Tougher to ramp scrips for new drugs, but it would save them a bundle. Probably bigger pushback from (say) TV networks.
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 3
The bill would prohibit any promotional communications targeting consumers, including through television, radio, print, digital platforms and social media.
Yeah, that sounds like Bernie. Little problem with the 1st amendment, though.
Not that Bernie has ever cared about that little document.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sens. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) and Angus King (I., Maine) introduced a bill Thursday that would ban pharmaceutical manufacturers from using direct-to-consumer advertising, including social media, to promote their products.
I've never understood what people have against direct to consumer advertising for pharmaceuticals. Sitting through their commercials does get tiresome, but that's more a statement about ads than the companies using them.
There are definitely cases where pharma advertising can be helpful to the consumer. I can count multiple times where my Dr. failed to inform me about a medication that I had learned about from other channels such as advertising.
Plus, with pharma companies required by the FDA to list even the rarest of side effects in their infomercials, the deck is already a bit stacked against them. I know multiple people who've heard the scary side effects for a drug (which is every drug in existence basically) and refuse to even consider it, even when those side effects in actuality only affect 1 in 1 million people or less.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, that sounds like Bernie. Little problem with the 1st amendment, though.
Not that Bernie has ever cared about that little document.
"While advertising is protected under the First Amendment, it is not afforded the same level of protection as other types of speech, like political or artistic expression. Specifically, commercial speech can be regulated or banned if it is false, misleading, or promotes illegal products or services."
Pharma does display side effects in small text below advertisements. Sometimes very scary stuff like "side effect is death". Some side effect!!! Not false, misleading or illegal so should be allowed.
Bernie is a clown. A millionaire himself, he hates too much success so doesn't want any billionaires. Only parasites like him should have power and money, you see.
Rant:
Extreme left and extreme right would not exist if it wasn't for the unfortunate combination of white people (including Arabs, per the US immigration classification) and an Abrahamic religion. Sad but true. Why don't you guys go back to sensible religions like Greek/Roman/Norse religions and give the rest of humanity a break? OTOH German Nazis did try that, weren't any more sensible. I don't know. Go out in the sun and get a tan, maybe that will calm you guys down.
No. of Recommendations: 22
"Bernie is a clown. A millionaire himself, he hates too much success so doesn't want any billionaires. Only parasites like him should have power and money, you see."
Here is yet another example of your poor sources of information making you look foolish and causing you to irrationally hate. You are forced to make up laughingly stupid descriptions of your opponent's views.
I say that as a person who is not a Bernie Sanders fan. At all. I have never voted for him and cannot ever see myself voting for him (I would only vote for him in some weird situation where him or an authoritarian Trumpian minion were my only realistic options). I have lots of problems with Bernie Sanders' views and policies but at least let's argue against his ACTUAL views and policies and not some dumbass made up idiocy.
This is why we can no longer have nice things in the U.S.A. A large enough portion of the voting population use terrible sources of information that lead them to be unable to accurately describe the positions of the debate.
It is exactly why you voted for Trump and now regret it.
No. of Recommendations: 17
Attacking an individual's ideas is fine, but isn't there some unofficial policy around here about not attacking an individual?
If people feel this discussion must continue please consider doing so on the U.S. policy board
https://www.shrewdm.com/MB?bid=17
No. of Recommendations: 7
please consider doing so on the U.S. policy board
You make an excellent point about this not being the right board, but that's not a very nice place to hang out : )
Perhaps we can sneak the conversation into the Creative Knitting board or something...
Jim
No. of Recommendations: 1
" You make an excellent point about this not being the right board, but that's not a very nice place to hang out : )
Perhaps we can sneak the conversation into the Creative Knitting board or something...
Jim"
lmao, U daman jim, I have so many on ignore over there I see 2-3 of 10 posts.
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Attacking an individual's ideas is fine, but isn't there some unofficial policy around here about not attacking an individual?
If people feel this discussion must continue please consider doing so on the U.S. policy board"
Umm.... the only person attacked was Bernie Sanders. Otherwise only ideas and actions were attacked.
Bernie probably would thank you for your concern though.
No. of Recommendations: 5
"Ken Fisher always says "that you should ignore politics in your investing."
I dunno. Politics are relevant to economics which is relevant to investing. Government policies are relevant to investing. So are cultural shifts. Even Jim is making investment decisions based on his assessment of the political situation in the US, as he should.
IMHO it is an irrational attachment to specific ideas or opinions -- whatever they may be -- that should be ignored when investing. Someone posted here recently about Dunning-Kruger syndrome, which is quite apt. Charlie was very eloquent on this point over the years. We really don't know what we don't know.
Politics, energy policy, interest rates - these affect investment decisons, and a diversity of perspectives is healthy. That's why boards like this are invaluable. But as someone once told me, "Opinions are like a-holes - everybody has one."
This is a fantastic group, a-holes and all. Onward!
abromber
No. of Recommendations: 2
You make an excellent point about this not being the right board, but that's not a very nice place to hang out : )
Yes, I tried to raise a few questions there - yikes!
tecmo
...
No. of Recommendations: 2
"You make an excellent point about this not being the right board, but that's not a very nice place to hang out : )
Yes, I tried to raise a few questions there - yikes!"
I just went to look at the US Policy board for the first time. Yikes indeed. Dunning-Kruger gone wild! I used to enjoy that kind of argument, but not anymore. I am glad to see it is still available for those who do.
Interestingly, and fortunately, very little overlap with the BRK board, in terms of who posts. I guess there is more than one sub-culture in Shrew-dom. Onward!
abromber
