Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Guys, let's not leave the door open and then wonder why house got burglarized. No one has right to criticize anyone on first principles. Can't have off-topic conversations on a forum and then question how off-topic one goes.
Get rid of off-topic option. We are not OFTOB we are MFO. Then let's act high and mighty with each other.
Do you see the "Categories" selections over on the left, there? Simply click on "Fund Discussions", and you won't need to read the OT. Simple as that.
That's not the point. If MFO allows Off-topic discussions, then I don't think it is fair to comment on individual motivations of people responding to off-topic discussions. Not sure if we are talking same thing.
Speaking of filters I want more. I want to exclude certain posters, then we can all be happy. However, I'm okay with "live and let live"
I'm inclined to agree with you regarding the experience factor. Unfortunately, if a candidate has experience, he/she also has plenty of accumulated baggage. This is also a problem with term limits: you elect someone from the "outside", and by the time they know where the water cooler is they're gone. If you prefer pols with "experience", they are already corrupt by the time they're elected.
No win, no how.
Yup. Ding! The Republicans have been hijacked into right-wing dystopia. Watch out for the wolves, because it's every man for himself. The Democrats? Surely NOT left-wing. More like centrist Eisenhower Republicans of the 1950s. And maybe Ike was the last Repub. worthy of the job of Prez.
Meanwhile, the country goes nowhere. Because there's a Dem. in the WH, the Repugs have decided to pout and say "no" to everything. Both parties are capitalist tools, anyhow. The Repugs. are more vociferous about it, that's all.
"Fed-Ex doesn't need employees as drivers: they hire "private contractors" who not only receive absolutely no benefits but must even supply their own trucks and uniforms."
Trucks? I haven't heard that one yet.
It won't matter in ten years anyway. All those Fed Ex trucks the employees bought will be converted to autonomous-driven.
They supply their own trucks ?!?!?!?! What are they doing? Delivering pizza?
I'm thinking maybe there are other companies UPS contracts to, who has the "trucks", who then subcontract drivers to drive. I just cannot imagine each UPS truck driver owning his own truck.
And by the way, in the future we will have transporters. So no need for the mailman.
"The ruling paves the way for the case to move forward in San Francisco federal court, where an estimated 2,300 ground delivery drivers are pressing claims that FedEx illegally shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to them by declaring them independent contractors.
The lawsuit contends FedEx between 2000 and 2007 improperly shifted the cost to drivers for a range of expenses, including FedEx branded trucks, uniforms and scanners. The lawsuit also seeks compensation for missed meal and rest periods, as well as overtime.
"FedEx ... built its business on the backs of individuals it labeled as independent contractors," Beth Ross, an attorney for the drivers, said."
Note: The San Jose, Ca Mercury is a well-regarded primary news source in the San Francisco Bay Area, and not noted for being particularly partisan in any direction.
I rarely read these type of threads. I'm about as middle of the road as they come (albeit about as radical an environmentalist as they come and probably because of all the time I spend in the great outdoors) For instance I dislike the current Democratic President almost as much as I disliked his Republican predecessor. I thought as traders or investors our job is to accumulate wealth and for better or worse to exploit what has been handed to us almost like never before since 2008 by the easy money Fed. If President Obama had any hand in that all I can say is many thanks. I've always thought of him as an anti business kind of guy but his time in office sure has seen a boom in the equity and bond markets.
Note: The San Jose, Ca Mercury is a well-regarded primary news source in the San Francisco Bay Area, and not noted for being particularly partisan in any direction.
You're not kidding. Under Knight Ridder, it was considered one of the ten best papers in the US. When it was sold to McClatchy, I was concerned about its quality, but it has maintained its high standards.
I tend not to post much on theads like this (as others have said of themselves as well). I keep busy enough fact checking the "professional" financial writers (who can't seem to count higher than their fingers and toes, or as Abe might have said, one score.) But I do appreciate your metacomment on SS.
Yes there are problems, yes it's political, and yes - it affects investing (e.g. looking into annuities to supplement SS should benefits be reduced). One needs facts to do good planning, or to have a reasoned discussion. Seems not to be the objective of this thread.
I concur with those who do not participate in political threads. There is a place for them, some enjoy them and some cannot restrain from participating in them. In my view, most political debates, even if they may start as a rational discourse, tend to bring out emotional side of some. One of the most important rules in investing for me is to stay rational (it is hard!) and detached when I am making investing decisions. That includes reading about investing.
Comments
Get rid of off-topic option. We are not OFTOB we are MFO. Then let's act high and mighty with each other.
Speaking of filters I want more. I want to exclude certain posters, then we can all be happy. However, I'm okay with "live and let live"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
as well as
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041386/
and this was an eye-opener
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0140447/
Meanwhile, the country goes nowhere. Because there's a Dem. in the WH, the Repugs have decided to pout and say "no" to everything. Both parties are capitalist tools, anyhow. The Repugs. are more vociferous about it, that's all.
Trucks? I haven't heard that one yet.
It won't matter in ten years anyway. All those Fed Ex trucks the employees bought will be converted to autonomous-driven.
I'm thinking maybe there are other companies UPS contracts to, who has the "trucks", who then subcontract drivers to drive. I just cannot imagine each UPS truck driver owning his own truck.
And by the way, in the future we will have transporters. So no need for the mailman.
"The ruling paves the way for the case to move forward in San Francisco federal court, where an estimated 2,300 ground delivery drivers are pressing claims that FedEx illegally shifted hundreds of millions of dollars in costs to them by declaring them independent contractors.
The lawsuit contends FedEx between 2000 and 2007 improperly shifted the cost to drivers for a range of expenses, including FedEx branded trucks, uniforms and scanners. The lawsuit also seeks compensation for missed meal and rest periods, as well as overtime.
"FedEx ... built its business on the backs of individuals it labeled as independent contractors," Beth Ross, an attorney for the drivers, said."
Note: The San Jose, Ca Mercury is a well-regarded primary news source in the San Francisco Bay Area, and not noted for being particularly partisan in any direction.
@Accipiter, I personally like In Harms Way.
I tend not to post much on theads like this (as others have said of themselves as well). I keep busy enough fact checking the "professional" financial writers (who can't seem to count higher than their fingers and toes, or as Abe might have said, one score.) But I do appreciate your metacomment on SS.
Yes there are problems, yes it's political, and yes - it affects investing (e.g. looking into annuities to supplement SS should benefits be reduced). One needs facts to do good planning, or to have a reasoned discussion. Seems not to be the objective of this thread.