gehringer_2
-
Posts
24,952 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
189
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Store
Articles
Posts posted by gehringer_2
-
-
40 minutes ago, ewsieg said:
In short, the 2 party system has plenty of issues, but 1 thing its really good at, is when the country sees solutions or other good ideas that can help our country but aren't being addressed, the losers have time to understand those issues and communicate them out. And good ideas tend to win elections.
This has been the Dems biggest problem IMO, as the middle class was becoming more an d more stressed, instead of going for the opening and moving into new economic thinking, they if anything hewed even closer to GOP trickle down, don't rock the boat, keep the corps happy, economic conservatism, and that included Obama. Biden was the first Dem to finally start taking on middle class economic issues but his efforts in that direction were lost in a lot of other noise. Part of this is the structure of campaign finance under Citizen's United - neither party is willing to risk alienating their corporate funders, but a big piece of this is just loss of intellectual creativity. They haven't had any new ideas/approaches to offer that they could make resonate as campaign assets.
The only dems out there there that are willing to at least try to move the debate on structural economics (as opposed to just talking about more entitlements-though they do talk about that a lot too!) are the young progressives like AOC who are basically self-funding themselves through the internet. And of course Elizabeth Warren, because MA politics has always been a little different.
-
1
-
-
24 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
The worst numbers for measuring economic health are the probably market indexes. They are measuring something in which the majority of American are unable to participate. Why would someone who has no money to invest care about the S&P 500?
interesting note on the indexes. In the same way it has become the case that GDP is measuring gains in too narrow a segment of the economy to be meaningful for the general population, the S&P 500 isn't even a decent indicator of the overall health of American business because the market cap of the Mag7 tech companies have exploded to such huge numbers that that is all you see in what the index's value, the other 493 stocks hardly matter. My marker for this is that I was holding an S&P index fund and got a message from the fund manager last month that they had to suspend the normal fund by-law about how large a percentage of the index could be concentrated in a small number of stocks because it had come into conflict with the rule that the fund had to hold the whole 500 in proportion to market cap.
That's about when I decided to get out.
-
1 hour ago, Screwball said:
The CPI is our inflation indicator, as we all know.
It's such a good number the even the Federal Reserve doesn't use it.
I think in general BLS is probably as good or better than the stat group anywhere in the world. I think the bigger problem is that we are willfully ignorant about paying attention to what the numbers do and don't mean. No greater example than the near total uncoupling of GDP and the economic health of an average American family. As long as we keep believing in the myths about certain numbers instead of paying attention better numbers that actually tell you something useful, we'll keep getting bad results for ordinary people. The old saw is that you get what you measure. We measure GDP so we keep getting GDP, even as the real socio-ecomomic health of the country goes down the tubes.
The numbers may not be corrupt, but how we use them is getting to be.
-
1
-
-
what's funny to me about the Pistons is that at least by any conventional basketball wisdom, the team is highly flawed and "anybody can see" their weaknesses and the kind of player move they need to make to be better. That's not the typical reaction to the team with the best record in the league, which usually gets the 'look at how all these pieces fit together so perfectly' type treatment.
On one hand, it's probably true that it's gotten to where the NBA regular season just doesn't pressure a team enough and that conventional wisdom will rear its ugly head quickly in the playoffs. But OTOH, if they do some winning in the playoffs, we may have to look at the possibility that they represent something of a paradigm shift in how to win in the NBA.
-
2 hours ago, buddha said:
why not just go to 64 teams?
If reports are to be believed, player salary costs for teams are reaching $40M/yr. The only way to cover that is more games.
-
31 minutes ago, pfife said:
Piker was also talking about Newsome vs JV Dance in 2028 but every post since acted like it was Newsome vs Trump, or at least glossed over any difference JVDance instead of trump would make in the voting calculus.
Newsom seems to be on a bit of a popularity roll in CA recently.
Just as discussion - I tend to think CA is not quite as progressive as people in other parts of the country think. There is a lot of upper middle class suburbia in CA and those people are never really that far from a low tax GOP that could bring itself back to sanity. Plus, as Trump was able to leverage in FLA for example, the Hispanic population is not as liberal on social issues as progressives are either, but of course for the time being the GOP has now totally poisoned the well with whatever support Trump got from them in 2024.. But still, if you take immigration/racism off the table in a post Trump GOP (of course not likely but just spitballing here) that's another population that's not just going to fall in line lockstep with a strongly progressive Dem party. So bottom line, I won't be surprised to see a lot of intraparty sparks fly if (when!) Newsom decides he's running in '28.
Personally, I have trouble trusting guys with perfect hair (Clinton, Newsom, Romney, Trump all qualify there)
-
1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:
Perhaps, it is the hope that they can start some kind of momentum. Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992. That's a lot votes. It didn't go anywhere, but perhaps the right person in the right time could change that.
Yeah - There might have been enough voter sentiment to get a third party going at that point but Ross wasn't really interested in building a movement, he just wanted to be President. I tend to think if a new party takes hold - probably eventually displacing one of the main ones, it will start local, become a established presence in a few states first, then organize nationally once they have an established constituency. I don't see the likelihood of a viable new party coming out of independent Presidential bids.
-
6 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
That is the most probable outcome. It sounds like he has a high floor and I think think there is a good chance he makes the opening day roster, but I would expect some troubles initially.
I'll be curious to see where they play him and how many places they play him in ST.
-
3 minutes ago, Tiger337 said:
A real example of what I think PFife is talking about (I think):
There are a LOT of people (including very smarts ones) who think that we are screwed whether we have a democracy, a dictatorship or something in between because of global warming. They think that neither party comes close to addressing the issue in a meaningful way. Why should they vote for either party? I'm not really with them because I don't know enough about it to know how bad it's going to get or how, so I vote for a democracy. However, if I shared their dire views, I sure wouldn't worry about our form of government over the world surviving.
I don't have any trouble understanding people who feel participating in the system is pointless. I don't agree with the sentiment but I understand it. And for those people, I can't say I see the point of voting 3rd party either (or voting at all FTM), not from any political angle in this case but just that it's a pure waste of their time to participate at all if they believe the system is irredeemable. Which ties back to the idea of casting a pointless vote as some kind of private protest or ego gratification. Maybe it makes someone feel like they have poked the system in eye, but the system doesn't feel a thing and doesn't care.
What the discussion here focuses on for me is the practical value of various voting strategies once one has decided they do care about the process/outcome.
-
-
29 minutes ago, NorthWoods said:
Jason Mackey
@JMackeyPG
·
1h
Some sad Pirates news to report: ElRoy Face passed away. He was 97. RIP Baron of the Bullpen.
If there were a baseball name HOF, he's in it.
-
54 minutes ago, Deleterious said:
But there is no reason he couldn't have put up a few threes in the Toronto game. They beat the Knicks by 38, fire up some shots.
this - for sure.
-
12 minutes ago, buddha said:
"if" is doing a lot of work there.
but he's athletic enough to think that if - there's that word again - anyone could have the coordination to learn how to shoot a basketball, its him.
I'd like to know what he does in practice. Sometimes with a super high energy player like Thompson they can hit shots in practice all day but under the pressure of game conditions there is too much adrenaline and they just can't marshall that instant of composure needed to get off an accurate shot. I'd rather it was a matter of form or footwork that he can practice his way through than that it's his style of play that make it hard for him.
-
34 minutes ago, chasfh said:
We were ranked 7th in runs scored before stumbling down the stretch. I don't think the problem was that the offense sucked. I think the problem was that a good offense stumbled down the stretch....
agree with all this. I don't think the Tigers are worried about the offense either. Most the key players are still either still approaching or in their primes - almost no-one on the downside other than maybe Javy and McKinstry and fair chance of adding at least one ++ hitter in McGonigle.
The flip side is that other than McGonigle and Anderson I don't see a lot of depth if guys start getting hurt. Two of the "insurance policies" from last season - Baddoo and Malloy are gone. But there are no perfect teams.
-
1
-
-
-
13 minutes ago, chasfh said:
Interesting how he said when he went to Houston in 2017 he had his "mind blown" by the analytics.
I've always felt there was a fair amount of revisionist history about 2017. I imagine part of it was just that JV wanted (quite properly) to say good things about his new team and team mates - and I don't care what anyone ever says, nobody gets traded from their first team and doesn't have mixed feelings at best about the management they are leaving.
The truth was he was already back pretty much to 100% form in Detroit before he left. In his last 11 Tigers starts his era was 2.31, he struck out 84 in 74 IP against only 20BB, and only gave up more than 3 runs once. The idea that he had to get to Houston the figure how to pitch again doesn't really square with the facts. That's not to say Houston wasn't doing a much better job with their analysis, just that that wasn't what made the difference for JV. The real change came in about June while he was still in Det and recovered his old arm angle, which he had gotten away from during the abdominal injury. That brought back the old fastball, and with the better FB, the effectiveness on all his breaking stuff, which he said Houston helped with, went up. But every breaking ball is tougher opposite a better FB.
-
2
-
-
23 minutes ago, pfife said:
Jeez that 'since 2003' wpuld include the great recession. Thats spectacularly bad.
The headline sentence appears to just be wrong. He's actually excepting years in actual recession (2008,2009,2020). Sort of saying "the worst year except for the ones that were even worser." Worst non-recession year since 2003 is still saying a lot though. Another example of how GDP, which is what defines recessions, is not really coupled to the economic outcome for most workers anymore.
-
2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:
Right, Flaherty did better in stats which are predictive of future performance including things like stuff+ which attempt to directly measure ability.
How do stats measure mental stamina? Flaherty's problems don't seem to be related to his physical pitching abilities at all, the deficits seem to be more in his concentration/mental energy. That could be one reason besides just bad luck that his stats look better than his results. Of course if that is that case it's also the kind of thing a guy might get better at mastering as this matures more.
-
5 hours ago, IdahoBert said:
Justin Verlander revealed he called Scott Harris, Chris Ilitch, and AJ Hinch “as soon as the season ended.” He wanted to return to the Tigers.
“I grew up in front of the fans in Detroit. I grew up in Detroit,” he said Thursday.
“At first, it didn't seem like there was much room for me. We had some very candid conversations, Scott and I, and unfortunately, there were some things that happened recently where some innings they were planning on — aren't going to be filled, so l think that opened the door. That's not the way you want it to go. Obviously, a lot of young talent here. They've done a great job of bringing guys in. But I'm happy to wear the Old English 'D' again and happy to be here.”
— Brad Galli WXYZOne thing about JV is that he has always seemed like a guy with his feet firmly planted on the ground. I can respect a guy that reported his situation with that kind of candor and tact.
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, chasfh said:
As would your recent advice that the voter just stay home if they're not going to vote for one of the two front-running horses. Both voting for the third party guy and staying home yield the same result for the two horses. So what is it we really talking about here?
actually that is more or less where I was going. If you find both options that are viable candidates to win morally objectionable, no-one is forcing you to vote, but whether you don't vote or vote Quixotically you haven't helped your cause either way, which why I think the choice if you are concerned about an issue that is not at play between the viable candidates is to look for some other avenue to be active on that issue.
But TBH, I don't think we are being particularly realistic by allowing the voter to say he *really* can't see enough difference between the two viable candidates to make a choice he believes is better overall. I'll allow that in 350M people I am sure there are some for whom that was really true, but most who parroted the cynicism that 'there was no difference between the parties' and then cast a 3rd party vote in any election since 2016 were either being willfully blind or unserious citizens.
That is about as clearly as I can state what I believe on the issue.
-
Look - you engaged me in this thread - I was responding to @ewsieg. You asked me a question - I gave you an answer and you've got your panties all in a bunch. If you don't want an answer, don't ask a question.
-
2 minutes ago, pfife said:
But I didn't vote to kill my spouse. That you would seemingly conclude someone do that is really something
And, your logic fails again because you again just waived your hand like a wizard and supplanted MY reasoning (not voting to kill my spouse) for MY vote with YOUR reasoning (keeping spouse alive) for MY vote.
That was the second time. The first time you did it was when I said the reasoning for the vote was b/c the pol supported policies that hurt someone I care about, and you just ignored that and supplanted it with "what's best for the country" in response.
No hand waving at all. Your vote did no good, it made no difference. That sucks when you want to believe voting is a chance to stand for what you want, but it's the reality of it. The reality of who may win an election and who can not is not a matter of my hand waving or yours it just is what it is. Not all change is in play in any given election, it may have to be worked at by other means. Which is why if there is no choice you can make that you can realistically believe is both useful and morally supportable, don't vote -- go work on the issue by other means.
-
30 minutes ago, pfife said:
candidate a: has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years.
candidate b: has chance to win, supports policy that voter thinks would result in death of spouse within 2 years, but country would be better.
candidate c : has no chance to win, but explicitly does not support policy that voter things would result in death of spouse within 2 years.
your reasoning: everyone owes their vote to candidate b. and if you had the audacity to NOT vote for candidate B, you, not everyone who voted for Candiate A, are responsible for everything candidate A does.
Me: I'm not voting to kill my spouse.
The weakness in your logic is that your vote still did nothing to help keep your spouse stay alive and if it helped elect candidate A instead of candidate B maybe you helped kill someone else's spouse.
In this hypothetical, your vote is going to make no difference to the policy that may kill your spouse regardless. You simply have to find other ways to work against that policy than your vote.
-
10 minutes ago, pfife said:
What if you dont want to vote for a politician because they will maintain policies you think make things worse for people you care about?
Or is that trumped by some self appointed decider of others' votes decided differently?
If a person seriously can't decide which of the candidates that has a chance to win is overall better for the country, my advice would be for them to stay home.
Investing
in Politics
Posted
I've been fairly aggressive for the last several years, but both because I'm uncomfortable with valuations and because I'm now older, I'm just pulling back in general, esp on anything related to the mega caps. I don't really like doing investment homework all that much. I'll spend a lot of time on it, buy some things, then let things ride quite a while between reviews. I think now is a good time to do some re-positioning.