Re: Ball so Hard.
 

You are absolutely wrong. I understand that perfectly. What you don't seem to understand is that the shift in moving away from manual labor takes ongoing, continual, funded training--you know, the kind government can fund as part of a larger, long-term plan to keep people employed.

The fact that some people will lose their jobs is not in question. But your extreme focus on this while proposing either lying to these people or forcing outmoded jobs on industries as a way to placate a few voters is just plain stupid. Did it help win this election? Sure. People are stupid. Is it a plan that will help any of these people or this country for more than an extremely short time period? Why am I asking this? You know the answer already.

Do you think anyone on this board will sit around whining about it and hoping the government forces our firms to keep our jobs? Or do you think we shape our careers to fit with the next opportunity? I'm guessing you've done this once or twice already--as have many here.

Bullshit. This has been your argument for months.

These are just words you've grouped together in front of a period. They don't mean anything.

This is stupid. And you are, once again, showing your limited ability to think past whatever is right in front of your face.

It may not be a feasible option for the coal miner who spent 40 years digging. But training people who live in coal country to work in geothermal energy or whatever because the coal miner's representatives were able to secure a plant within that community means that community has jobs going forward and doesn't die. And even though the guy who spent his life mining coal may not catch on, his little brother, son, daughter, niece, whatever would.

Right. So give up on generations because you can't focus on anyone but those who are so tied to their jobs that they have no options. You should join the Trump administration. They're looking for "thinkers" like you.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

More bullshit.

You need to go back and study the causes of the 2007 crash. Smaller community banks couldn't sell, package, and buy bullshit mortgages to sell for a quick profit to investment banks fast enough.

TM

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

There were over 300 failed banks following the last banking crisis. Mostly community banks.

On top of that, there is a big tendency in the market right now that is very dangerous. There are a lot of community banks looking to bulk up for sale, and they're ready to do all kinds of loans, not caring about what happens because they're going to offload them, show a spike in lending, and then exit. This is the next crisis brewing, and its brewing in the small banks.

Most of the biggest banks have hit the point where it is hard for them to do acquisitions, they just already have too much market share. So there are a bunch of banks in the $10+ billion range out there getting financing to bulk up by buying smaller banks, hoping to be the next big bank.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Fair point, and as one who earlier this month took an anti-hyperbole stance, I will amend Thurgreed's statement on his behalf to say that you are, once again, almost entirely full of shit. Good edit! That rings more true.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

This I agree is a legitimate issue. But it depends a lot on geography. In PA/MD/DE, the regs inhibit small business lending too much. Where you are, a much stronger area economically, I've no doubt the phenomenon you describe is an issue, as risky loans are easier to disguise.

As to TM's point on flipping, he's right - completely - that community banks pumped out mountains of garbage pre-2008. But that sort of thing can be stopped with the regs we put in place regarding loans to be flipped, while relaxing regs on loans to be held by those community banks. The answer isn't blanket reg enhancement or relaxation, but selective smarter regulation.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I'm going to bet I'm exposed to a lot more of these obsolete Trump voters than most here. I see little hope of retraining even the young of them. And, tech eliminates jobs at a rate in excess of the pace at which it creates new ones. Retaining, investing in alternative energy, etc. -- these are worthwhile things. But they'll fix maybe 20% of the problem.

As to the other 80%, the options I see are:

1. Fuck the obsoletes; let the market do what it will to them; or,
2. Guaranteed income

The problem with #1 is, they vote, as you've seen.

Ryan Secreast Can Announce the Winner
 

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I believe the Trump approach is to hire these folks to police the rest of us. Expect one of them to knock on your door soon to administer the oath of loyalty to Trump.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

I don't know if you are correct about this and neither do you. But be aware that when I see you giving percentage probabilities about what will happen in the future, I feel compelled to remind you that you have already personally acknowledged the dubious credibility of your predictions on pretty much all subjects.

Today's Daily Dose is a tasty slab of funk from Jean Knight. "Do Me":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwJH6SepXCQ

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

While we are on the topic, fuck everyone.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Your ideas are intriguing to me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
- H. Simpson

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

Yes, but I have also noted I am as bad at assessing my ability to predict as I am at predicting. You rely on a very dicey acknowledgement.

Re: Ball so Hard.
 

If you are concerned that I might be giving too much credibility to anything you have written, you can rest easy.

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

Re: I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused.
 

"Hillary will be more warlike" : https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.663a2389fe68