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.
A defining characteristic of the MFO Posting Board is its adaptability to change and the freedom to exercise that adaptability. But civility is also important.
As John Maynard Keynes remarked: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” For the most part, MFOers follow Keynes’ path. Otherwise, investment rewards will suffer. Unfortunately, we don’t always choose wisely, but that’s what makes a vibrant marketplace. Divergent perspectives, carefully defined and honestly presented, are mostly respected here.
The freedom to choose is a major factor in our Nation’s success. Benjamin Franklin observed that “ only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Further, he stated: “A virtuous and laborious people may be cheaply governed.”
I suppose that suggests that we were and are a virtuous community. On a small scale, that’s often demonstrated by the friendly and helpful MFO interchanges. Buried within Franklin’s wisdom is a cautionary warning to respect challenges.
I am grateful that MFO exchanges mostly adhere to this historical American way. I learn from the Board’s postings and try to contribute to the overall learning experience.
@Old_Joe -- Wasn't pointing out to anyone in particular. Between an action and reaction, there is always (the generic) you who has a choice to make. Political issues are usually not so black and white, as sometimes painted for simplicity of arguments.
@Kaspa- Oh, I didn't take it personally, believe me, but I do have to acknowledge that when someone starts a verbal barroom brawl I'll probably engage. As far as political black and white, I couldn't agree more: that's usually why I choose to engage, to make that very point.
Disagree. I learn all sorts of things. Usually through posted links, though sometimes argument. And others say the same to me from things I have posted. Thrice in the last two months, in fact.
Gadzooks? Gadzooks I haven't seen that in many more years. A venerable expression, I am sure. As Billy Shakespeare once said as he watched a bunch of bow-legged men coming over the horizon, "Gadzooks, forsooth, what men are these, who wear their pants in parentheses?"
To not respond, it seems to me, is to tacitly concede the accuracy of such a post. .
Really? Perhaps I just don't care about politics enough or am completely cynical or both.
In any instance, I don't feel the need/responsibility to defend a political party from differing views by random people on the internet. (shrugs.) I'd rather have a congress with a record low approval rating defend themselves and justify their actions (or, more accurately, inaction) than spend my energy defending politicians such as the poorly-rated congress.
Even if I were to feel similarly, what would I defend? Both sides are terrible. Gee, can't wait to choose between the inspired choices of Clinton (any other democrats want to run? no? Bueller?) and Bush next election.
It does nothing for you aside from raising blood pressure and I'm happy to let people come to their own conclusions, which is what's more than likely going to happen anyways.
I don't always agree with you on monetary policy or politics, but you are welcome to your opinion. Maybe I'll post to disagree with you at times, but I don't feel a responsibility to respond because I feel if I don't, that's somehow admitting that you are accurate.
I don't like when people's right to have a differing view is dismissed (which didn't really happen in this thread, which was nice to see) - and civil discussion just keeps getting worse and worse (especially in regards to politics.)
That said, I've tried to participate in debates online about things far less - it ultimately accomplishes little and does nothing but create stress. As for politics, people are more and more set in their ways (and hatred) for the opposite side.
So did I, Junkster. I am proudly a lefty. Good employers give lefties a 10% bump in pay because we are so talented. For some reason, I worked for 42 years without finding such an employer.
"I don't feel the need/responsibility to defend a political party"
Neither do I. Defending against blatant propaganda and misinformation is another matter. Lot's of people didn't think it necessary to defend against Hitler, either. That didn't turn out well.
I'd like to give some credit to everyone for keeping this thread reasonably civil - certainly more than I'd expected.
Agree Scott. If you go back and read the original post, it's "baiting" pure and simple. Hell, I don't care what newspaper Flack or anyone else chooses to read. Their choice. I also agree with what you said elsewhere - that these political discussions online rarely turn out well.
I was union back in my work days. One of our union reps always seemed to hanging around just outside the boss' office and kidding with the secretaries over there. So one day I asked him "What gives?" - Why was he always hanging out so close to the Administrative office? He said: "Because I want to know what the other side's thinking."
Always remember that. So, though I have to hold my nose reading much of the editorial stuff in IBD - I do want to know what they're thinking.
I would like to think that even with the political disagreements, the vast majority of MFO members can agree to disagree over a pint or wine glass at the local pub.
"One of our union reps seemed to be always hanging around just outside the boss' office"
@hank- I had the misfortune to be unanimously elected shop steward in my working days. I had not indicated ANY interest in the position, but an alleged friend nominated me anyway, and that was that. I always tried to put myself in the employer's position, both to understand what pressures were driving any particular situation, and to prepare countermeasures if necessary. In a large bureaucracy many times local management isn't thrilled by a situation either, but they are under pressure from a management level that has no idea what a particular work group actually does or how and why they do it.
I always found it advantageous to remain civil and on good terms with management: frequently we were able to quietly compromise on issues and avoid overt conflict. With respect to certain employees who always seemed to cause more than their fair share of problems, frequently most of the shop actually was on management's side anyway, and it fell to me to simply ensure that the written rules were fairly observed. What an experience!
I am very apolitical. I consider that a saving attribute; it allows me to keep composed and logical when others jump from high cliffs without much water below them. Denials aside, based on their postings, quite a few MFOers do not share that attribute. That’s okay by me except for deceptive denials which just erode trust.
On some issues I am right oriented; on some issues I am left oriented. I have and continue to vote for members from both major parties. I guess I just can’t make up my mind. More than anything else, I am an optimistic American. If that appears chauvinistic, that’s because it is hugely chauvinistic.
No, it’s not that I can’t make a party decision. It is because I don’t vote for parties; I vote for preferred people. At bottom, I vote for men and women who most closely display virtues that I value.
What are these virtues? They include qualities like industry, self-reliance, frugality, perhaps philanthropy, surely honesty, marriage, religiosity, and directness. I’m sure this list in incomplete, but its an adequate departure from the starting blocks.
These are virtues that I honor and try to practice; I’m sure you have a similar list. I suspect all Americans share an analogous roll-call. Many historians believe that our common virtues separate us from other nations. They promoted our success when others failed.
Tocqueville particularly admired American women. He said: “ … to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women”. Amen to that insight.
In the Revolutionary War, the women followed the men into potential battle zones as washwomen and cooks. When the fighting began, they carried shells and gunpowder to artillery pieces. When gunners fell wounded, the women immediately filled the gaps and manned the weapons. That same resilience and toughness made the settling of the West successful, and it continues today. Hooray for them; hooray for all of us.
So for me, it’s not Right or Left that matters whatsoever; it’s individual, gender-neutral people that matter greatly. I’ll vote my assessments on a person by person basis.
@Maurice- Yeah, I've seen that too. But to be fair, I saw a lot of that sort of thing on the union side too. Sometimes it just drove me nuts. As I said, I really didn't want the job. The reason that I got it was simple: there was one fellow who really did want to be the steward. He was the laziest, least competent person in the group, and was universally disliked by everyone on both sides of the table. So when my supposed friend nominated me, it was in his self defense, and unfortunately everyone else felt the same way.
And of course I wound up spending more time defending this clown than almost anything else. He had a way of stretching situations to the utmost, but when management went after him they always tried shortcuts instead of showing up with adequate documentation, simply because they didn't bother to keep decent records. I used to tell management that we hoped that they could get him too, but they had to do it right. If I had let management break the rules with that guy, that would have set a precedent that would remove legitimate defenses for the rest of the crew, and that I couldn't do.
Edit/Add: At times I considered the possibilities of becoming a lawyer. But after the experiences of defending a person who was usually guilty as hell, and a jerk to boot, I realized that I wasn't cut out for lawering.
Comments
A defining characteristic of the MFO Posting Board is its adaptability to change and the freedom to exercise that adaptability. But civility is also important.
As John Maynard Keynes remarked: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?” For the most part, MFOers follow Keynes’ path. Otherwise, investment rewards will suffer. Unfortunately, we don’t always choose wisely, but that’s what makes a vibrant marketplace. Divergent perspectives, carefully defined and honestly presented, are mostly respected here.
The freedom to choose is a major factor in our Nation’s success. Benjamin Franklin observed that “ only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” Further, he stated: “A virtuous and laborious people may be cheaply governed.”
I suppose that suggests that we were and are a virtuous community. On a small scale, that’s often demonstrated by the friendly and helpful MFO interchanges. Buried within Franklin’s wisdom is a cautionary warning to respect challenges.
I am grateful that MFO exchanges mostly adhere to this historical American way. I learn from the Board’s postings and try to contribute to the overall learning experience.
Thank you all for your fine efforts.
Best Wishes.
Take care- OJ
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg58.htm
http://www.citehr.com/155355-buddha-abuse-how-respond-others-negative-comments.html
Disagree. I learn all sorts of things. Usually through posted links, though sometimes argument. And others say the same to me from things I have posted. Thrice in the last two months, in fact.
Gadzooks! Haven't seen that in many years.
In any instance, I don't feel the need/responsibility to defend a political party from differing views by random people on the internet. (shrugs.) I'd rather have a congress with a record low approval rating defend themselves and justify their actions (or, more accurately, inaction) than spend my energy defending politicians such as the poorly-rated congress.
Even if I were to feel similarly, what would I defend? Both sides are terrible. Gee, can't wait to choose between the inspired choices of Clinton (any other democrats want to run? no? Bueller?) and Bush next election.
It does nothing for you aside from raising blood pressure and I'm happy to let people come to their own conclusions, which is what's more than likely going to happen anyways.
I don't always agree with you on monetary policy or politics, but you are welcome to your opinion. Maybe I'll post to disagree with you at times, but I don't feel a responsibility to respond because I feel if I don't, that's somehow admitting that you are accurate.
I don't like when people's right to have a differing view is dismissed (which didn't really happen in this thread, which was nice to see) - and civil discussion just keeps getting worse and worse (especially in regards to politics.)
That said, I've tried to participate in debates online about things far less - it ultimately accomplishes little and does nothing but create stress. As for politics, people are more and more set in their ways (and hatred) for the opposite side.
I like that.
Excellent
Neither do I. Defending against blatant propaganda and misinformation is another matter. Lot's of people didn't think it necessary to defend against Hitler, either. That didn't turn out well.
I was union back in my work days. One of our union reps always seemed to hanging around just outside the boss' office and kidding with the secretaries over there. So one day I asked him "What gives?" - Why was he always hanging out so close to the Administrative office? He said: "Because I want to know what the other side's thinking."
Always remember that. So, though I have to hold my nose reading much of the editorial stuff in IBD - I do want to know what they're thinking.
@hank- I had the misfortune to be unanimously elected shop steward in my working days. I had not indicated ANY interest in the position, but an alleged friend nominated me anyway, and that was that. I always tried to put myself in the employer's position, both to understand what pressures were driving any particular situation, and to prepare countermeasures if necessary. In a large bureaucracy many times local management isn't thrilled by a situation either, but they are under pressure from a management level that has no idea what a particular work group actually does or how and why they do it.
I always found it advantageous to remain civil and on good terms with management: frequently we were able to quietly compromise on issues and avoid overt conflict. With respect to certain employees who always seemed to cause more than their fair share of problems, frequently most of the shop actually was on management's side anyway, and it fell to me to simply ensure that the written rules were fairly observed. What an experience!
I am very apolitical. I consider that a saving attribute; it allows me to keep composed and logical when others jump from high cliffs without much water below them. Denials aside, based on their postings, quite a few MFOers do not share that attribute. That’s okay by me except for deceptive denials which just erode trust.
On some issues I am right oriented; on some issues I am left oriented. I have and continue to vote for members from both major parties. I guess I just can’t make up my mind. More than anything else, I am an optimistic American. If that appears chauvinistic, that’s because it is hugely chauvinistic.
No, it’s not that I can’t make a party decision. It is because I don’t vote for parties; I vote for preferred people. At bottom, I vote for men and women who most closely display virtues that I value.
What are these virtues? They include qualities like industry, self-reliance, frugality, perhaps philanthropy, surely honesty, marriage, religiosity, and directness. I’m sure this list in incomplete, but its an adequate departure from the starting blocks.
These are virtues that I honor and try to practice; I’m sure you have a similar list. I suspect all Americans share an analogous roll-call. Many historians believe that our common virtues separate us from other nations. They promoted our success when others failed.
Tocqueville particularly admired American women. He said: “ … to what the singular prosperity and growing strength of that people ought mainly to be attributed, I should reply – to the superiority of their women”. Amen to that insight.
In the Revolutionary War, the women followed the men into potential battle zones as washwomen and cooks. When the fighting began, they carried shells and gunpowder to artillery pieces. When gunners fell wounded, the women immediately filled the gaps and manned the weapons. That same resilience and toughness made the settling of the West successful, and it continues today. Hooray for them; hooray for all of us.
So for me, it’s not Right or Left that matters whatsoever; it’s individual, gender-neutral people that matter greatly. I’ll vote my assessments on a person by person basis.
Best Wishes.
@Maurice- Yeah, I've seen that too. But to be fair, I saw a lot of that sort of thing on the union side too. Sometimes it just drove me nuts. As I said, I really didn't want the job. The reason that I got it was simple: there was one fellow who really did want to be the steward. He was the laziest, least competent person in the group, and was universally disliked by everyone on both sides of the table. So when my supposed friend nominated me, it was in his self defense, and unfortunately everyone else felt the same way.
And of course I wound up spending more time defending this clown than almost anything else. He had a way of stretching situations to the utmost, but when management went after him they always tried shortcuts instead of showing up with adequate documentation, simply because they didn't bother to keep decent records. I used to tell management that we hoped that they could get him too, but they had to do it right. If I had let management break the rules with that guy, that would have set a precedent that would remove legitimate defenses for the rest of the crew, and that I couldn't do.
Edit/Add: At times I considered the possibilities of becoming a lawyer. But after the experiences of defending a person who was usually guilty as hell, and a jerk to boot, I realized that I wasn't cut out for lawering.