OT: Stockmarket falls >33% in just a couple of weeks!

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 2:13:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The market isn't rigged, there are just a lot of stupid people in it.


The market "may" be rigged, but I would argue that instead of a lot of stupid people being in the market, there are instead a lot of large commercial and industrial buyers in it (including computerized trading). The effect on the average individual investor is predictable.

Last comment:
You gave (pseudo) stock advice in your post.
Essentially: Keep your money out of the market for now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm still in the market and will put more money in when the timing is right. How could I recommend to anyone that they do differently from me. I didn't give advice. I described the situation as I see it.


> Of course I generally agree with the sentiment as I "feel" the markets will depress at least another 1/3rd in value before this is over.

I have no idea how much the markets will drop and I don't care. I don't invest in "markets". More important is when to invest. As someone pointed out, there are plenty of companies who will do well from this disaster and they are good investments now. The trick is figuring out exactly who they are.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
news:15342639-de39-49eb-8cc9-68eb223a6c88@googlegroups.com:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:59:34 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sat, 21 Mar 2020 09:07:05 -0700,
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Some industries will make a killing on the recovery. Buy them.

But you can't buy into funeral services, soup kitchens and
suchlike, John. They're typically privately-owned or
charitably-funded.

Actually funeral homes have been bought up by larger companies for
decades. Few are independent now. They simply don't change the
names or anything else about them so as to retain the families
that return to the same homes time and time again. Much more so
in the coming weeks.

Blanket statements are so stupid.

NO, funeral homes have NOT been "all bought up". Therer are
HUNDRDS, literally, all around the country.

Try to refrain from making shit up based on your tunnel vision
strained eyes. Much more so in the coming rest of your life.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I recall when Enron was going under the company put a clamp on selling the stock from employee's retirement accounts.

The COMPANY?, or the SEC?

The company would not have the authority to stop ALL employees from trading company shares in which they were fully vested (in the case of ESOP), or they own outright. The Company could establish blackout dates that prohibit officers, directors, etc.., and certain select employees from trading (but not an across-the-board prohibition.) Blackouts happen all the time for various reasons, including upcoming material changes that can affect the stock price - such as earnings announcements, etc..

The SEC however, can halt trading of a stock. Period.

Not that it matters if your ESOP options exercise price is upside-down.
Ask me how I know.... (Big thumbsdown - "lost" about $60k that way once.)

Two more thoughts, which I'll put in a separate post. (Stand by..)

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 11:44:13 AM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

When people are selling stocks and buying toilet paper,
it's time to be selling toilet paper and buying stocks.

(This is a rare opportunity for making money--everything's on
sale.)

Why not simplify things and just buy out-of-money warrants?

You could even print them on toilet paper, if you like (except that TP currently has a higher value).

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The market isn't rigged, there are just a lot of stupid people in it.
>

The market "may" be rigged, but I would argue that instead of a lot of stupid people being in the market, there are instead a lot of large commercial and industrial buyers in it (including computerized trading). The effect on the average individual investor is predictable.

Last comment:
You gave (pseudo) stock advice in your post.
Essentially: Keep your money out of the market for now.

Of course I generally agree with the sentiment as I "feel" the markets will depress at least another 1/3rd in value before this is over.

However, I just wanted to relate something I read in The Black Swan by Nicolas Taleb, which has great bearing in these times: Here's a snipit from an NPR interview: (And readers here can extrapolate this to the current situation, and the (expert) player in it, however they wish!)

Dr. TALEB: "People that we call experts, effectively, are no better than cab drivers, okay? They can't predict revolutions better than cab drivers. They cannot predict inflation better than cab drivers. And they can hardly predict earning ratios better than cab drivers, okay? But we call them experts, but in these complex - it's not their mistake. The only thing I blame them for is not knowing that they can't predict better than cab drivers, you see? So…

CONAN: I was interested in your whole cab driver conversation. I used to be an editor at various points in my life, and I would always hear - foreign correspondents, their first day in a country, they'd be quoting, as one local said - and I said, is that the guy who gave you the ride from the airport? And if it was, I would make him take that out. I'm now thinking maybe I was wrong about that. You're suggesting cab drivers are just as well informed as everybody else.

Dr. TALEB: They're as good - the difference is that - this is why I recommend, if you want to talk about stock market to talk to a cab driver, not a stock broker, because, you know people talk about the stock market for therapy - not really. There's nothing effective. And if you listen to a cab driver, you're not going to rely on them and take as much risk as if you listened, watched CNBC or listen to experts, you see? And that's what the problem - yes?"

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:59:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I recall when Enron was going under the company put a clamp on selling the stock from employee's retirement accounts.

The COMPANY?, or the SEC?

The company would not have the authority to stop ALL employees from trading company shares in which they were fully vested (in the case of ESOP)

It was the matching shares that Enron locked down.

But you completely missed the point of my post that the whining of all the lost money was based on the peak price of the company which was phony baloney valuation because the company was a house of cards and how that relates to the current stock market situation?

Did you get any of that?

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 21/03/20 16:54, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:24:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 21/03/20 16:14, Rick C wrote:
People are talking about sacrificing the relatively small percentage of
human deaths to this disease by letting it run rampant to try to save the
economy. I vote to temporarily sacrifice the economy to save workers who
will be needed when we are ready to put them back to work.

It looks like you may not have understood the Imperial College predictions.
There's a decent summary and a link to the report at
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/


Now those are fallible predictions and they can't consider
all possibilities, but they are the best we've got.

If you have something better, please convince others then tell us.

That article starts with a fundamentally flawed assertion, "That means the
pandemic needs to last, at a low level, until either enough people have had
Covid-19 to leave most immune (assuming immunity lasts for years, which we
don’t know) or there’s a vaccine."

Given the choice between believing your statements or the
statements in the IC report, I'll believe the IC report.

I'll change that if you provide evidence to support your hopes.

The other option is that the disease is eradicated by isolation. I'm not
talking about social distancing. I'm talking about months long lock down
until there is no disease in a country then extended travel restrictions
until the rest of the world is safe. This is not impossible, but it will
take a long time.

And your evidence that might occur is what, exactly?

That's the thing that is hard to imagine. In the US we most likely will need
to be in lock down into the summer.

And that's the evidence that you don't understand the IC report.

This disease doesn't kill enough people so as to make people think they need
to avoid it at all costs. In the younger age groups it's only 1 in 10 or
less. They don't realize that number goes up quickly when the hospitals are
overloaded. Many thing "social distancing" will do the job. Is there really
something magical about a 6 foot distance when the disease is transmitted on
door handles??? So we will take half measures and let the disease run
through the population. Then in maybe a year it will be safe for the rest of
us to come out.

Nope, according to people that have far more expertise in the
subject than you (or I).

I'm hoping we will lock down the country and have the sort of success some of
the Asian countries have had. Who do you think will be rebuilding the
economies first, those who eliminate the disease or those who let it run
through the population decimating the medical system?

It wouldn't decimate the medical system. It would decimate
the population.

That could be seen to bring many "advantages"; as I noted earlier...

I imagine people around Cummings and his ilk are thinking
unthinkable thoughts like
- short term:
- reduced bed blocking
- more inheritance tax income
- long term:
- reduced pension payments
- reduced care payments
- reduced pressure on the NHS
- more houses becoming available, reducing the pressure to
build more
- more stamp tax income as people move
- a hard brexit ain't our fault
- lots of opportunities to bury bad news
- city/government isn't to blame for the (overdue)
stock market "correction"
Me a cynic? Shurely shome mishtake.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:25:41 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

> I have no idea why you are talking about any of this. What is this in relation to? Or are you just changing the topic of conversation randomly?

I am responding directly to your statement about people whining over losing money.

I am also responding to your incorrect (and patently absurd) notion that Enron could somehow halt trading on shares it did not own.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 2:34:48 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 2:13:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
The market isn't rigged, there are just a lot of stupid people in it.


The market "may" be rigged, but I would argue that instead of a lot of stupid people being in the market, there are instead a lot of large commercial and industrial buyers in it (including computerized trading). The effect on the average individual investor is predictable.

Last comment:
You gave (pseudo) stock advice in your post.
Essentially: Keep your money out of the market for now.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm still in the market and will put more money in when the timing is right. How could I recommend to anyone that they do differently from me. I didn't give advice. I described the situation as I see it.

OK - I won't put words in your mouth.
Let's just cut-n-paste what you actually wrote:

"I haven't been in the market for a while.
[snip..]
The economic news is going to continue to be bad for the foreseeable future..
Anyone who doesn't believe that should not be in the stock market."

1) You're either in the market or not.
You've posted two mutually exclusive statements.

2) That phrase "Anyone who doesn't believe that should not be in the stock market." is itself stock advice. And it's contradicting advice since you yourself say you believe it, and yet you also claim to be in the market yourself.

Honestly, it reads like a bunch of double-speak gibberish.
Care to clarify?

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:19:49 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 2:28:01 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:59:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I recall when Enron was going under the company put a clamp on selling the stock from employee's retirement accounts.

The COMPANY?, or the SEC?

The company would not have the authority to stop ALL employees from trading company shares in which they were fully vested (in the case of ESOP)

It was the matching shares that Enron locked down.

But you completely missed the point of my post that the whining of all the lost money was based on the peak price of the company which was phony baloney valuation because the company was a house of cards and how that relates to the current stock market situation?

Did you get any of that?

Oh yes, I got all of that. (How much do you know about investing?)

If the employees were vested in the matching shares, then Enron would have no authority to touch them as they no longer belong to the company. Period. (Subject to blackout dates for select company senior management, pursuant to SEC insider trading rules.)

And if the employees weren't vested, then the employees did not yet own the stocks in question. Hence, those shares COULD NOT BE TRADED (no matter what Enron had to say about it.)

Now, if you are trying to say that Enron abruptly ended their Employee Stock Ownership Plan's matching, then that's a completely different thing THAT DOES NOT EVEN INVOLVE THE STOCK EXCHANGES. It only involves whether or not Enron was violating provisions of its ESOP. It has nothing to do with Enron enforcing any kind of halt on trading.

This is very typical of you. Instead of learning about something you talk about it like you know something about it. But clearly you have not bothered to read one word about the matter since you are talking in hypotheticals.. Do a little research about what happened. That's all you need to do.

Since your side issue is not relevant to my point, I won't respond to it any further.

As to valuation:
Yes - stock prices get fluffed-up beyond reasonable valuation of the company in question. Sometimes, as in the case of Enron, the "fluff" becomes a house of cards, ready to crumble (often when the frenetic growth phase terminates). In short: When a growth company (or a "build-n-flip") needs to turn the corner and actually become an operating company. If operations were being largely funded out of "growth"... Oops! You don't want to be holding the bag at that time! (We are in agreement.)

That said:
DO NOT conveniently forget that a LOT of money was made during the "fluff-up" stage, and that cash spends just as easily (maybe more so) than the cash you might make digging a ditch. If I made $10M in the run-up, and "lost" $2M on the crash - I didn't lose $2M. I made $8M.

And when the company crashes and burns, there's money to made on the downside too, as the vultures start circling. It's often a different crowd of profiteers, but the money flows (sometimes hemorrhages) both coming and going. Two quick example: Retention bonuses for senior management, and (in the case of restructuring), profits made by writing off debt.

I have no idea why you are talking about any of this. What is this in relation to? Or are you just changing the topic of conversation randomly?

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 2:28:01 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 1:59:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:14:16 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
I recall when Enron was going under the company put a clamp on selling the stock from employee's retirement accounts.

The COMPANY?, or the SEC?

The company would not have the authority to stop ALL employees from trading company shares in which they were fully vested (in the case of ESOP)

It was the matching shares that Enron locked down.

But you completely missed the point of my post that the whining of all the lost money was based on the peak price of the company which was phony baloney valuation because the company was a house of cards and how that relates to the current stock market situation?

Did you get any of that?

Oh yes, I got all of that. (How much do you know about investing?)

If the employees were vested in the matching shares, then Enron would have no authority to touch them as they no longer belong to the company. Period.. (Subject to blackout dates for select company senior management, pursuant to SEC insider trading rules.)

And if the employees weren't vested, then the employees did not yet own the stocks in question. Hence, those shares COULD NOT BE TRADED (no matter what Enron had to say about it.)

Now, if you are trying to say that Enron abruptly ended their Employee Stock Ownership Plan's matching, then that's a completely different thing THAT DOES NOT EVEN INVOLVE THE STOCK EXCHANGES. It only involves whether or not Enron was violating provisions of its ESOP. It has nothing to do with Enron enforcing any kind of halt on trading.

As to valuation:
Yes - stock prices get fluffed-up beyond reasonable valuation of the company in question. Sometimes, as in the case of Enron, the "fluff" becomes a house of cards, ready to crumble (often when the frenetic growth phase terminates). In short: When a growth company (or a "build-n-flip") needs to turn the corner and actually become an operating company. If operations were being largely funded out of "growth"... Oops! You don't want to be holding the bag at that time! (We are in agreement.)

That said:
DO NOT conveniently forget that a LOT of money was made during the "fluff-up" stage, and that cash spends just as easily (maybe more so) than the cash you might make digging a ditch. If I made $10M in the run-up, and "lost" $2M on the crash - I didn't lose $2M. I made $8M.

And when the company crashes and burns, there's money to made on the downside too, as the vultures start circling. It's often a different crowd of profiteers, but the money flows (sometimes hemorrhages) both coming and going.. Two quick example: Retention bonuses for senior management, and (in the case of restructuring), profits made by writing off debt.

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:48:53 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:25:41 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
This is very typical of you. Instead of learning about something you talk about it like you know something about it. But clearly you have not bothered to read one word about the matter since you are talking in hypotheticals. Do a little research about what happened. That's all you need to do..

BTW, Rick,

I don't need to "learn" any of this because I lived it - as Senior Vice President of Engineering for a tech company with, at its peak, over $1B valuation on the NASDAQ. That company was much like an Enron, only not as far along. But left to its own devices, probably would have become an Enron in 6 - 8 months. (And it's not the only one: Even big name accounting firms were in on the action. Follow the money, or follow the greed.)

I've sat through all the board of directors meetings. I've had to prepare the reports. I've had to convince 125 employees in my charge that they'd have a job and a paycheck next week, all the while unknown to them, the company was scrounging for bridge loans to keep afloat until we could file. I know practically everything there is to know about Ch-11 bankruptcies, multi-member bank groups, cram-downs, pre-packs, write-offs, the over-securitization of assets, non-material financial restatements, and out-of-money warrants for subordinated debts. (ESOP being last on that pile, by the way!)

Please don't feel the need to preach to me.

But I will tell you this and it is absolutely true: Greed knows no boundaries.
Whether you're making money hand-over-fist, or the company is in free-fall, everybody want's their piece, and would (almost) completely satisfied if their piece constituted the whole pie! You can take that to the bank.

It is stunning to see play out in real life. (Even in front of the bankruptcy judge.)

So you refuse to read anything about what happened at Enron? I guess I shouldn't expect anything different.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

> The countries that have had successes in fighting this disease. Where have you been? China has not reported new cases for some days now. The number of new infections has been less than the number of recoveries for over a month. Clearly they have nearly isolated the disease.

That's a BIG MAYBE !!
And I sincerely hope it is true, but only time will tell.
I wouldn't be quick to jump to any conclusion absent such time.

I've lost track of who said what...

To the point about "isolating Covid-19 out of existence"...
Let's assume that is "do-able" and that it would actually succeed.
Are there any unintended consequences to trying that?

I'm not here to list potentialities, only to mention that actions have outcomes. Maybe we lock people in their homes for 90 days and millions die from obesity (i.e, 90 days of couch-potato-ing)

Which I doubt of course, but divining the unintended consequences is at least worth some consideration.

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> So you refuse to read anything about what happened at Enron? I guess I shouldn't expect anything different.

What, EXACTLY, do you want me to read about Enron (that I don't already know)?

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 21/03/20 23:06, Rick C wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:42:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 21/03/20 16:54, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:24:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 21/03/20 16:14, Rick C wrote:
People are talking about sacrificing the relatively small percentage
of human deaths to this disease by letting it run rampant to try to
save the economy. I vote to temporarily sacrifice the economy to save
workers who will be needed when we are ready to put them back to
work.

It looks like you may not have understood the Imperial College
predictions. There's a decent summary and a link to the report at
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/




Now those are fallible predictions and they can't consider
all possibilities, but they are the best we've got.

If you have something better, please convince others then tell us.

That article starts with a fundamentally flawed assertion, "That means
the pandemic needs to last, at a low level, until either enough people
have had Covid-19 to leave most immune (assuming immunity lasts for
years, which we don’t know) or there’s a vaccine."

Given the choice between believing your statements or the statements in the
IC report, I'll believe the IC report.

I'll change that if you provide evidence to support your hopes.

All you need to do is read and pay attention. I've said it many time.


The other option is that the disease is eradicated by isolation. I'm
not talking about social distancing. I'm talking about months long lock
down until there is no disease in a country then extended travel
restrictions until the rest of the world is safe. This is not
impossible, but it will take a long time.

And your evidence that might occur is what, exactly?

The countries that have had successes in fighting this disease. Where have
you been? China has not reported new cases for some days now. The number of
new infections has been less than the number of recoveries for over a month.
Clearly they have nearly isolated the disease.

But I'm sure you are going to quibble that they haven't succeeded in totally
eliminating the disease. Ok, but there's no reason to think they can't.

Yes, there are extremely good reasons to believe they can't.
See figures 3 and 4 in the IC report. Go on, open your eyes
and simply *look*.

I know you don't want to believe them any more than
John Larkin wants to believe covid-19 is a real problem.

<repetitious wishful thinking snipped>

 

[mpm]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:25:41 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
> This is very typical of you. Instead of learning about something you talk about it like you know something about it. But clearly you have not bothered to read one word about the matter since you are talking in hypotheticals. Do a little research about what happened. That's all you need to do.

BTW, Rick,

I don't need to "learn" any of this because I lived it - as Senior Vice President of Engineering for a tech company with, at its peak, over $1B valuation on the NASDAQ. That company was much like an Enron, only not as far along. But left to its own devices, probably would have become an Enron in 6 - 8 months. (And it's not the only one: Even big name accounting firms were in on the action. Follow the money, or follow the greed.)

I've sat through all the board of directors meetings. I've had to prepare the reports. I've had to convince 125 employees in my charge that they'd have a job and a paycheck next week, all the while unknown to them, the company was scrounging for bridge loans to keep afloat until we could file. I know practically everything there is to know about Ch-11 bankruptcies, multi-member bank groups, cram-downs, pre-packs, write-offs, the over-securitization of assets, non-material financial restatements, and out-of-money warrants for subordinated debts. (ESOP being last on that pile, by the way!)

Please don't feel the need to preach to me.

But I will tell you this and it is absolutely true: Greed knows no boundaries.
Whether you're making money hand-over-fist, or the company is in free-fall, everybody want's their piece, and would (almost) completely satisfied if their piece constituted the whole pie! You can take that to the bank.

It is stunning to see play out in real life. (Even in front of the bankruptcy judge.)

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 6:42:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:

On 21/03/20 16:54, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 12:24:28 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 21/03/20 16:14, Rick C wrote:
People are talking about sacrificing the relatively small percentage of
human deaths to this disease by letting it run rampant to try to save the
economy. I vote to temporarily sacrifice the economy to save workers who
will be needed when we are ready to put them back to work.

It looks like you may not have understood the Imperial College predictions.
There's a decent summary and a link to the report at
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/615370/coronavirus-pandemic-social-distancing-18-months/


Now those are fallible predictions and they can't consider
all possibilities, but they are the best we've got.

If you have something better, please convince others then tell us.

That article starts with a fundamentally flawed assertion, "That means the
pandemic needs to last, at a low level, until either enough people have had
Covid-19 to leave most immune (assuming immunity lasts for years, which we
don’t know) or there’s a vaccine."

Given the choice between believing your statements or the
statements in the IC report, I'll believe the IC report.

I'll change that if you provide evidence to support your hopes.

All you need to do is read and pay attention. I've said it many time.

The other option is that the disease is eradicated by isolation. I'm not
talking about social distancing. I'm talking about months long lock down
until there is no disease in a country then extended travel restrictions
until the rest of the world is safe. This is not impossible, but it will
take a long time.

And your evidence that might occur is what, exactly?

The countries that have had successes in fighting this disease. Where have you been? China has not reported new cases for some days now. The number of new infections has been less than the number of recoveries for over a month. Clearly they have nearly isolated the disease.

But I'm sure you are going to quibble that they haven't succeeded in totally eliminating the disease. Ok, but there's no reason to think they can't. They've been at it for near two months, so that gives you an idea of how long it will take... if we are able to summon the will here in the US and other democratic countries.

That's the thing that is hard to imagine. In the US we most likely will need
to be in lock down into the summer.

And that's the evidence that you don't understand the IC report.

A statement which you don't bother to support with any explanation. I'm not interested in your insults. Either say something worth listening to or we can just stop discussion.

This disease doesn't kill enough people so as to make people think they need
to avoid it at all costs. In the younger age groups it's only 1 in 10 or
less. They don't realize that number goes up quickly when the hospitals are
overloaded. Many thing "social distancing" will do the job. Is there really
something magical about a 6 foot distance when the disease is transmitted on
door handles??? So we will take half measures and let the disease run
through the population. Then in maybe a year it will be safe for the rest of
us to come out.

Nope, according to people that have far more expertise in the
subject than you (or I).

Nope, what exactly???

I'm hoping we will lock down the country and have the sort of success some of
the Asian countries have had. Who do you think will be rebuilding the
economies first, those who eliminate the disease or those who let it run
through the population decimating the medical system?

It wouldn't decimate the medical system. It would decimate
the population.

That could be seen to bring many "advantages"; as I noted earlier...

I imagine people around Cummings and his ilk are thinking
unthinkable thoughts like
- short term:
- reduced bed blocking
- more inheritance tax income
- long term:
- reduced pension payments
- reduced care payments
- reduced pressure on the NHS
- more houses becoming available, reducing the pressure to
build more
- more stamp tax income as people move
- a hard brexit ain't our fault
- lots of opportunities to bury bad news
- city/government isn't to blame for the (overdue)
stock market "correction"
Me a cynic? Shurely shome mishtake.

Whatever. I'm not interested in your whining.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:36:05 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:06:54 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

The countries that have had successes in fighting this disease. Where have you been? China has not reported new cases for some days now. The number of new infections has been less than the number of recoveries for over a month. Clearly they have nearly isolated the disease.

That's a BIG MAYBE !!
And I sincerely hope it is true, but only time will tell.
I wouldn't be quick to jump to any conclusion absent such time.

I've lost track of who said what...

To the point about "isolating Covid-19 out of existence"...
Let's assume that is "do-able" and that it would actually succeed.
Are there any unintended consequences to trying that?

I'm not here to list potentialities, only to mention that actions have outcomes. Maybe we lock people in their homes for 90 days and millions die from obesity (i.e, 90 days of couch-potato-ing)

Which I doubt of course, but divining the unintended consequences is at least worth some consideration.

See, this is the sort of absurdism I'm talking about.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Rick C]

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:28:06 PM UTC-4, mpm wrote:

On Saturday, March 21, 2020 at 7:08:09 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
So you refuse to read anything about what happened at Enron? I guess I shouldn't expect anything different.

What, EXACTLY, do you want me to read about Enron (that I don't already know)?

How can you not know what we are talking about??? Is it because you never listen to what others say and only here what you want them to be saying???

What actually happened. I looked it up and what I said was what happened. They prevented employees from selling shares of stock in their retirement accounts.

Why are you so loath to just do a Google search and find out what happened?

This is why I often ignore your posts. Trying to discuss anything with you is an exercise in futility. I'm happy to learn from you and you did make some points with me when we were talking about gun control. But you go off the deep end and start assuming what I am talking about rather than listening.

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Whoey Louie]

On Friday, March 20, 2020 at 9:11:37 PM UTC-4, Cursitor Doom wrote:

Some historic records being smashed here, along with hard-working
people's retirement dreams....

https://tinyurl.com/wjbyxq5

Too many sharks in this ocean for the small fish to survive. Stock
markets are rigged. If you have no insider info like the big boys have
access to, you get skinned alive.
Glad I sold out of this fake shit-show decades ago. :-D

You didn't need insider information to avoid this. It was very public
what was happening, step by step, starting in China starting mid January.
If you were a diehard trumper and listened to him and Fox that could have cost
you.